The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged in the instant case, although the gist of the grounds for appeal is acknowledged that the Defendant had at will a vehicle owned by the victim.

2. Determination

A. On October 20, 2012, the Defendant discovered that the Defendant was parked in the said police station parking lot that was inspected by the Yangyang-gun Police Station No. 279 (hereinafter “instant vehicle”) owned by the Victim G while returning home to Korea on the condition that the Defendant inflicted an injury on F at the parking lot in Yangyang-gun, Yangyang-si, Yangyang-si, Yangyang-si, Yangyang-gu, Yangyang-gu, Yangyang-si, Yangyang-gu, Yangyang-si, and found that the Defendant was parked in the said police station parking lot (hereinafter “instant vehicle”), and used the key of the said vehicle previously possessed by the victim and moved the said vehicle to the E industry company operated by the Defendant, thereby impairing its utility.

B. The lower court determined as follows, based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court of the lower judgment: (i) the Defendant: (a) the Defendant: (b) the Defendant was able to repair the instant automobile and claim repair expenses; (c) the victim and the F and the Defendant agreed to have the said automobile without leaving the repair of the said vehicle any longer on the part of the Defendant; and (d) the Defendant refused to return the vehicle heat; (b) the Defendant’s side and the victim did not voluntarily drive the vehicle at the police station due to the vehicle’s expense; (b) the Defendant and the victim got the vehicle driven voluntarily at the police station; (c) the victim driven the said vehicle using the auxiliary key to the vehicle and parked it at the police station parking lot; and (c) the Defendant driven the said vehicle using the vehicle ki that was not returned to the victim to receive repair expenses of the said vehicle on the roads back to the police station investigation; and (c) without any separate corrective device or shielding facility for the industry operated by the Defendant.