The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant acquired a DNA options passenger car registered in the name of C around February 4, 2015 under the name of C around February 4, 2015.

A person who has taken over a registered motor vehicle shall file an application for the registration of transfer of ownership within 15 days from the date on which the reason for registration arises to the Mayor/Do Governor.

Nevertheless, the defendant did not apply for the registration of transfer of ownership of the above automobile within 15 days from the day of acquisition without justifiable grounds.

2. Article 12(1) of the Automobile Management Act, which applies to the facts charged in the instant case, provides that “A person who acquires a registered motor vehicle by transfer, shall file an application for the registration of transfer of the ownership of a motor vehicle with the Mayor/Do governor, as prescribed by Presidential Decree.” Article 81(2) of the Automobile Management Act provides that a person who fails to file an application for the registration of transfer of the ownership of a motor vehicle without justifiable grounds, in violation of Article

As above, Article 12(1) of the Automobile Management Act provides for the obligation to apply for the registration of transfer of “ownership” of a motor vehicle, it is reasonable to deem that the said registration of transfer provides for the registration obligation of the transferee of the motor vehicle with the intention to acquire ownership.

In light of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence adopted and examined by this court, namely, upon C’s request, the Defendant appears to have managed and kept the said vehicle from February 4, 2015 to June 2015 upon C’s release from the detention house. Since C’s control over the said vehicle by means of a hostile vehicle, the Defendant immediately delivered the said vehicle to the Sungdong Police Station, and the Defendant appears to have not operated the said vehicle directly, the Defendant was merely a person who kept the said vehicle upon C’s request, and the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor alone was acquired by the Defendant with the intention to acquire ownership.