On May 25, 2009, the Defendant entered into a contract on the supply of feed with the content that the injured party is supplied with milling feed from the advanced and injured parties in the farm in the operation of Defendant B located in North Korea-gun.

In the process, the Defendant entered into a contract with the victim to set up a collateral for transfer with respect to the 34 mag and 21 mag (hereinafter “object”) owned by the Defendant on the farm in order to secure the payment of credit feed ( maximum of KRW 40 million) in the future with respect to the above feed supply contract with the victim.

In accordance with the above concession security agreement, the defendant and the victim agreed that the injured party shall take over the above object from the defendant and the defendant cannot dispose of the above object without the consent of the injured party, so the defendant has a duty not to transfer the above object to another person pursuant to the agreement.

Nevertheless, on November 2015, the defendant violated the above duty and disposed of the above object to the person who was not the deceased in name at the above farm around 27.5 million won.

As a result, the defendant acquired financial benefits equivalent to KRW 27.5 million and suffered damages equivalent to the same amount to the victim.

1. Statement of the defendant in the second public trial records;

1. Statement made by the police against C;

1. Application of statutes on a copy of a process deed;

1. The reason for the sentencing of Article 355(2) and Article 355(1) of the Criminal Act regarding criminal facts and Article 355(1) of the Criminal Act (the method of recommendation) [the scope of punishment] [the basic area (from April to one year and four months) of the type 1 (less than 100 million won) of the group of crimes committed as multiple times] [the decision of sentence] is committed by the defendant, and there is no record that the defendant has been punished for the same kind of property crime, the conditions for the sentencing favorable to the defendant, the fact that the defendant disposed of the object of transfer security without permission, thereby causing a large number of property damage to the creditor, and the damage has not been restored.