A. Since the Defendant intended to sell the instant truck at a reasonable price to repay the loans of the victimized company, and did not intend to avoid auction for the instant truck that the Defendant intended to gain profits, the Defendant did not unjustly reduce the security value of the instant truck and did not intend to commit a breach of trust against the Defendant, the lower court convicted the Defendant, and thus, it erred by misapprehending the facts.

B. Since it is unclear whether the defendant is a person dealing with the damaged company's business, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to "a person dealing with another's business."

C. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Where a mortgage is established on a misunderstanding motor vehicle, the exchange value of the motor vehicle is included in the mortgage, and even if the mortgager sells the motor vehicle and the owner is different, it does not constitute a crime of breach of trust merely because the mortgager simply sells the motor vehicle which is the object of the mortgage to another person, barring any special circumstance, but the debtor who provides the motor vehicle as security and possesses the motor vehicle unfairly reduces the value of the security,

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do11665, Sept. 13, 2012). As to whether the Defendant unfairly reduced the collateral value of the instant truck, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, namely, a delegation agreement entered into with D, even if the Defendant asserted that he/she entrusted sales to D to sell the instant truck at a reasonable price, and the instant truck is a registered titleholder of the instant truck.