Punishments (fines 3,00,000) sentenced by the court below are too unreasonable.

2. Although the Defendant transferred the ownership of 9 machinery to the victim in order to secure the repayment of the loan borrowed from the victim E and transferred the said machinery to the victim by means of possession and alteration, the crime of this case was committed by selling the said machinery and thereby causing damage to the victim of the balance of the loan amount of KRW 19 million, which is favorable to the Defendant, such as: (a) the Defendant recognized the instant crime; (b) there was no record of punishment; and (c) there was no record of punishment; and (d) the balance of the loan amount appears to have been fully repaid.

However, considering the above favorable circumstances, the lower court appears to have been sentenced to a relatively minor fine, there is no change in circumstances that may be newly considered in the sentencing after the sentence of the lower judgment, the result of the application of the sentencing guidelines of the Sentencing Commission (the scope of recommending the crime of breach of trust: from January to October; the result of the application of the sentencing guidelines by the Sentencing Commission (the term “the case where partial damage has been recovered” as a special person; the term “no criminal punishment force has been available” as a general person); and other various circumstances that include the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, character and environment, motive for the crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc., it is difficult to view that the sentence imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.