The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

1. Around July 2013, the Defendant paid KRW 24 million from Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D to F with the vehicle sale price. On January 2014, the Defendant was operating a vehicle with GMW 528i vehicles (hereinafter “instant vehicle”) acquired from F in the same place as D located in Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and did not file an application for the transfer of ownership without justifiable grounds.

2. In a judgment, the burden of proof for the criminal facts prosecuted in a criminal trial is to be borne by the public prosecutor, and the conviction of guilt is to be based on evidence with probative value that makes the judge feel true beyond a reasonable doubt (Article 307(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act). If there is no such evidence, even if there is a suspicion of guilt against the defendant, it is inevitable to determine the benefit of the defendant.

(2) On February 12, 2009, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do9890, Feb. 12, 2009). The Defendant consistently asserted that the instant vehicle from the police to the present court is not a vehicle purchased from F, but a vehicle delivered for the purpose of carrying out temporarily until F until F delivers the vehicle of 2008, which the original Defendant intended to purchase from F, and the Defendant was merely a vehicle delivered for the purpose of carrying out temporarily. ② The police wanting to have the vehicle of e.g., 208 at the police around March 2013 to April, 208. However, the instant vehicle of e.g., the Defendant could not seek e., e., the vehicle of e., the Defendant had to return the vehicle of e.g., the vehicle of e., the amount corresponding to the Defendant’s assertion.