A. As to the violation of trust, the following circumstances revealed by the prosecutor’s evidence, i.e., ① the victim C (hereinafter “victim”) invested KRW 500 million in E business promoted by D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”) and set up a collateral security (hereinafter “mortgage”) with the maximum claim amount of KRW 600 million against F and 12 parcels at the time of taking it as collateral, the Defendant was in a position to handle the victim’s affairs as a trustee of the said collateral security (hereinafter “instant collateral security”).

It is reasonable to see that the Defendant borrowed KRW 20 million from H on August 30, 2013. On September 4, 2013, the Defendant: (a) filed for additional registration of partial transfer of the right to collateral security with the obligee H on the part of the maximum amount of KRW 30 million out of the instant right to collateral security; and (b) the Defendant asserted that the Defendant either used the Defendant’s loan of KRW 20 million from H for Company G with limited liability (hereinafter “instant company”) or borrowed the said money with the consent of the victim; (c) However, in light of the content of the payment of the said money, it is difficult to accept the Defendant’s above legal action, this part of the facts charged is fully recognized.

B. As to embezzlement, as seen in the above A, the Defendant was a trustee of the instant right to collateral security, and according to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, it can be acknowledged that the Defendant requested the return of each of the above documents from the injured party while the Defendant was in custody of the agreement on the creation of collateral security and the registration certificate related to the said right to collateral security, but did not return it without any justifiable reason. Thus, this part of the facts charged also