However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

On October 11, 2012, the Defendant: (a) borrowed 20 million won from the victim B at the 2nd degree office of the 2nd degree of Taecheon-dong, Taecheon-dong, Mapo-gu, Seoul, Seoul, from the victim B; (b) borrowed 88 million won from the 2nd degree office of the 2nd degree of the 4 million won interest; (c) for the purpose of securing the performance of the obligation, the Defendant prepared a written contract for transfer and takeover to the victim to the effect that the ownership of goods, etc. equivalent to approximately KRW 45 million at the market price, such as the 7st degree of open shock, 1st degree of the 5 million interest, and 1st unit of the 3nd class of the 45 million interest, which are operated by the Defendant, is transferred to the victim by the possession amendment; and (d) if the Defendant fails to repay the debt by the

Therefore, the Defendant had a duty to faithfully keep the object of security for transfer and maintain its value as a security until he/she repaid the borrowed money to the victim according to the above contract.

Nevertheless, the Defendant violated the above duties and arbitrarily disposed of the said goods after receiving 45 million won from the above E on November 15, 2012, which was prior to the due date for repayment.

Therefore, the defendant violated his duty as a person who has established the security for transfer, thereby acquiring property benefits equivalent to 188 million won, which is equivalent to the security value of the security object at the time of the above disposition, and causing property damage equivalent to the same amount to the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Protocol of police statements concerning B, and application of Acts and subordinate statutes of notarial deeds;

1. Article 355 (2) and (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the crimes.

1. It is so decided as per Disposition on the grounds of Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (such as the fact that the defendant did not have any particular criminal history, paid a considerable portion of the borrowed money, and that the remainder will be repaid in the future) or more.