1. On September 12, 2016, the Defendant borrowed KRW 100 million from the victim B to China as the fund for purchasing the original source of the loan from China, and thereafter, on September 13, 2016, the Defendant offered the said loan as security by entering into a trade contract with the mincc 17,000 ging-based ging-based ging-based ging-based ging-based ging-based ging-based ging-up 190,00 ging-up ging-

Until the repayment of KRW 100 million is completed in accordance with the above transfer collateral agreement, the defendant had a duty to keep the above collateral with the duty of due care of a good manager so that the value of the collateral could not be damaged so that the obligee, who is the obligee, could achieve the purpose of the collateral. However, in violation of such duty, the defendant provided C with the above collateral under the pretext of advance payment for the clothes to be supplied by the trader C, a trader around September 30, 2016, and disposed of the above collateral at will.

As a result, the Defendant acquired the property interest equivalent to the market price of the above collateral (minc 17,00 amp 17,00 amp scke 190,00 amp scke scke scke scke scke scke scke sc

2. On November 24, 2016, the Defendant borrowed KRW 50 million from the injured party under the pretext of customs clearance against the original company imported from China, and provided them as security by means of concluding a sales contract with respect to the above borrowed amount as security.

Until the repayment of the above KRW 50 million is completed in accordance with the above transfer collateral agreement, the defendant fulfilled his duty of due care as a good manager so that the value of the collateral could not be damaged so that the victim, who is the creditor, could achieve the purpose of the collateral, and thus, he did not dispose of the collateral at will by providing C with the above collateral under the pretext of advance payment for the clothes to be supplied by the trader C, who is a trader, around November 2016.

Accordingly, the defendant is the property of the amount equivalent to the market price of the above security (Pololol 20,000 Polols).