The judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case is erroneous.

2. In a case where a mortgage is established on a judged automobile, an automobile exchange value is included in the mortgage, and even if the mortgager sells an automobile and the owner is different, the mortgage does not constitute a crime of breach of trust merely by selling an automobile which is the object of the mortgage to another person, barring any special circumstance.

However, the crime of breach of trust can only be established in a case where the debtor who provides and occupies a motor vehicle as security reduces the value of the security.

(Supreme Court Decision 2010Do11665 Decided September 13, 2012). The record reveals that the Defendant, who was operating the P industry, requested the Defendant to submit necessary documents prior to the name of the vehicle, and issued a power of delegation, certificate of personal seal impression, automobile sales contract, etc. on April 23, 2009. The remainder of the vehicle amounting to KRW 10,50,000, G paid the down payment. The Defendant, 41,000,000,000,000, which was loaned from the Social Services Korea Co., Ltd., Ltd., Ltd., Ltd., where the Defendant was aware of the fact that the Defendant, who was using the instant vehicle on November 18, 2009, requested the Defendant to deliver documents necessary for the transfer of the vehicle name, the Defendant issued a power of delegation, certificate of personal seal impression, and the instant vehicle sales contract, and the fact that the instant vehicle was unknown to be located in the name of H around April 16, 2016.

As above, the defendant's act of transferring the instant vehicle to G is alone.