The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant did not donate the instant car to the victim C, was not given a property division or consolation money, and even if the donation of the instant car is recognized, the owner of the instant car withdrawn his intention of donation with content certification several times, and thus, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty is erroneous in matters of law.

B. The judgment of the court below on unreasonable sentencing (two million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below on the erroneous determination of facts, since the Defendant donated the instant car to the victim C on April 23, 2007, the Defendant was operating and managing the instant car. On March 25, 2009, the Defendant was living separately with the victim and the victim agreed to own the instant car as property division or consolation money, and the Defendant did not pay the remaining vehicle installments on the day of the instant vehicle, thereby bringing the instant car at the underground parking lot where the victim was living.

Considering the various circumstances revealed in the record as above, the above argument by the Defendant cannot be accepted in full view of the following facts: (a) as long as the Defendant donated the instant car to the victim, the actual owner of the instant car ought to be deemed the victim regardless of the registered name; and (b) even if the victim sent the victim a certificate of the content that “a person transfers the name of the vehicle or demands the return of the vehicle,” as alleged by the Defendant, inasmuch as the Defendant did not pay the vehicle installments or taxes, etc., and even if the victim sent the victim a certificate of the contents that “a person would transfer the vehicle name

B. The Defendant’s decision on the unfair sentencing.