Therefore, Defendant 1 completed the instant building until he repaid the loan to the victim’s safe with the proceeds from sale of the instant building until he repaid the loan to the victim’s safe, and completed the registration of preservation of ownership, and there was a duty to guarantee the priority of the victim’s safe interest by registering the trust in Nonindicted 2 trust company.

Defendant 1, around May 8, 2012, ordered Defendant 2 to borrow the construction cost, and made a registration of preservation of ownership of the instant building as security, as the construction cost falls short of the construction cost. However, since the instant building is under construction, the owner of the instant building has received completion inspection and approval for use and registration of preservation of ownership in the name of the owner of the instant building. On June 14, 2012, the Defendants changed the name of the owner of the instant building from Defendant 1 to Defendant 2, notwithstanding the opposition of the victim’s credit cooperative.

After undergoing a completion inspection on the instant building, Defendant 2 obtained approval for use on August 28, 2012, and completed registration of preservation of ownership on the instant building under his own name on August 29, 2012.

Accordingly, even though the Defendants conspired to register the trust on the instant building with Nonindicted Co. 2 and had the duty to guarantee the priority of the victim’s safe right to benefit, the Defendants violated their duty to protect the ownership of the instant building in the name of Defendant 2, thereby obtaining property benefits equivalent to KRW 1 billion and causing property damage equivalent to the same amount to the victim’s safe.

1. Part of the first interrogation protocol against Defendant 1 by the prosecution (including part of the interrogation protocol against Defendant 2 and Nonindicted 4)

1. Part of the interrogation protocol of Defendant 1 by the prosecution No. 2

1. Each police suspect interrogation protocol against Defendant 1 (including part of the interrogation protocol for Nonparty 4, Defendant 2)

1. The police statement of Nonindicted 4 and Nonindicted 15

1. Statement of Nonindicted 4’s additional police statement

1. Investigation reports by each prosecutor's office (related to attachment of reference materials, submission of civil petitions prohibiting change of the name of the owner, etc., and filing of materials using the trust management work cost);

1. Police investigation report (Submission of evidentiary data by a complainant);

1. A loan transaction agreement, a security trust agreement, a full certificate of registered matters, a report on change of construction participants, a report on change of construction participants, a written consent for change of the name of the owner, an application for approval of change of construction participants, an application for approval of change of the name of the owner, a fund management agent, an application for the second change of the loan management agent contract, an Internet output contract, an Internet screen, details of revenue and expenditure on behalf of security for the living facilities in the △△ District, a contract on succession of rights and duties, an application for change of name, a letter of commitment, a letter of commitment, Defendant 2, and a statement of approval for use, a statement of approval for each private construction project contract, each written contract, each written contract, each written statement of deposit of construction

1. Provision of each financial transaction information, and submission of financial transaction information about each order for submission;

1. The reply to the commission of the dispatch of documents to Nonindicted Co. 2 (the letter of request for the execution of funds and the second modified contract for the fund management agency contract, etc.);

A. Defendant 1: Article 3(1)2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, Article 355(2) and Article 30 of the Criminal Act

B. Defendant 2: Article 3(1)2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, Article 355(2), the main sentence of Article 33 and Article 30 of the Criminal Act

A. Defendant 1

Although the facts stated in the facts charged are the facts charged, the Defendant did not have the intention to commit a breach of trust. In other words, Defendant 1 cannot be deemed to have committed a crime of breach of trust inasmuch as it had been committed by harming the change of the name of the owner and transferred the building as security in order to complete the construction of the building by lending the construction cost under an inevitable circumstance where Defendant 2 had no choice but to follow the demand

B. Defendant 2

① Defendant 1’s act does not constitute a crime of breach of trust since Defendant 1’s act does not constitute a crime of breach of trust since Defendant 1’s act did not constitute a crime of breach of trust in the first place. ② Nonindicted Co. 5 and Nonindicted Co. 16 respectively are separate independent companies, and Defendant 2 did not attend at the time of concluding the second amendment of the Act on the Management of Funds around February 2012. Defendant 2 was not aware of the additional trust relationship with the instant building and was provided as security by lending KRW 1680,00,00 as construction price to Defendant 1 without having been aware of the additional trust relationship with respect to the instant building. In light of the fact that Defendant 1’s act of breach of trust was not actively involved in the act of breach of trust, Defendant 2 does not constitute a crime of breach of trust.

2. Facts of recognition;

According to the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this Court, the following facts may be recognized:

A. On August 23, 2010, Defendant 1 entered into a sales contract with EP to purchase KRW 480,000,000 [2.5,50,000,000,000 (2.3,000,000 won as bid deposit as of August 13, 2010 + KRW 13,00,000,000 + KRW 13,000,000,000) out of the balance of 17,291,000,000 won as of November 17, 2010 and the principal amount of KRW 251,584,280,00,00 as of principal and interest in arrears as of November 27, 2010; and Defendant 1 paid each of the above payment guarantee bonds to Defendant 17,205,715,7,000 won.

B. On October 28, 2010, Defendant 1 obtained a building permit to construct a building (hereinafter “instant building”) which is a 8-story underground floor, 1,90 square meters of the total floor area, 480 square meters of the site area on the instant land, and on August 17, 2011, with respect to Nonindicted Co. 3 (hereinafter “Nonindicted Co. 3”) with respect to the said newly constructed construction cost as to the said newly constructed construction cost from August 30, 201 to April 30, 2012. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 23558, Aug. 30, 2011; Presidential Decree No. 23265, Aug. 30, 2011>

C. (1) On September 1, 201, Defendant 1 entered into a security trust agreement with Nonindicted Party 2 on the instant land with the victim’s safe and preferential beneficiary amounting to KRW 1.3 billion on September 1, 201, when the victim’s safe was given a loan of KRW 1 billion at the maturity of payment on September 1, 201, and at the interest rate of 7.2% (transfer rate) per annum. For such security, Defendant 1 entered into a security trust agreement with the victim’s safe and preferential beneficiary amounting to KRW 1.

2) In addition, Defendant 1 entered into a contract with the victim’s safe (loaning Institution), Nonindicted 2 Trust Company (Agency Trust Company), and Nonindicted 3 Company (Agency) as an implementer. The main contents of the said security trust contract and the fund management agency contract are as follows.

본문내 포함된 표 [담보신탁계약서] 신탁계약 본문 제1조(신탁목적) 이 신탁계약의 목적은 위탁자 또는 수익자가 우선수익자에 대하여 부담하는 채무 내지 책임을 담보하기 위해 수탁자가 신탁부동산을 보전·관리하고, 위탁자 또는 수익자의 채무불이행 시 신탁부동산을 처분하여 정산하는 데 있다. 제22조(추가 담보신탁) 신탁목적의 달성을 위하여 신탁부동산 지상에 건축물이 준공(사용승인 또는 사용검사)되는 경우 위탁자 또는 수익자는 소유권보존등기와 동시에 준공건축물을 이 신탁계약과 동일한 조건으로 수탁자에게 추가 신탁하여야 한다. 위탁자 및 수탁자는 다음과 같이 특약사항을 정하기로 한다. 특약사항 제2조(신탁등기 및 우선수익자의 채권확보) ① 신탁부동산의 공부정리 미완료로 신탁계약 체결일 현재 수탁자 앞 신탁등기가 불가하므로 에스에이치공사의 공부정리가 완료되고 에스에이치공사로부터 위탁자에게 신탁부동산의 소유권이전등기가 경료됨과 동시에 수탁자 명의의 소유권이전등기 및 신탁등기를 경료하기로 한다. 제3조(수익권 등) ① 신탁등기가 경료되기 전까지는 본 계약에서 정하는 우선수익자의 수익권은 그 효력이 발생되지 아니한다. 제8조(준공 후 이전등기 등) ① 신탁목적을 달성하기 위하여 위탁자는 신탁부동산 지상에 건축(예정) 중인 건축물의 사용승인을 득한 경우에, 준공건축물의 보존등기를 함과 동시에 본 계약과 상응한 조건으로 수탁자에게 추가신탁(담보신탁 등)하여야 한다. 제18조(계약의 효력) ① 이 신탁계약(특약사항 포함)의 효력은 계약체결일로부터 발효한다. [자금관리대리사무계약서] 제3조(역할 및 업무) ① 피고인 1은 시행자(분양사업자)로서 다음 각 호의 업무를 수행한다. 8. 건축물의 완공 시 소유권보존등기 후 공소외 2 신탁회사에 추가신탁할 의무 ② 공소외 3 회사는 사업의 시공사로서 다음 각 호의 업무를 수행한다. 1. 피고인 1과 체결한 도급계약에서 정하는 건축기한 내 책임준공 ③ 공소외 2 신탁회사는 대리사무신탁사로서 다음 각 호의 업무를 수행한다. 1. 사업부지 전체에 대한 담보신탁 계약의 체결 2. 건축물의 신축 후 보존등기된 건물에 대한 담보신탁 수탁 3. 분양수입금 관리계좌 개설 및 분양대금의 수납, 관리 4. 본 사업 관련한 분양수입금 등 사업자금의 관리 및 집행 5. 건축공사의 공정에 따른 공사비 등 제반 비용 지급 ④ 공소외 1 새마을금고는 사업 관련 대출자로서 토지매입비 및 초기 사업비 대출 등의 업무를 수행한다. 제4조(계약의 효력 및 개별계약체결) ① 본 계약은 시행자 피고인 1과 대리사무신탁사 공소외 2 신탁회사 간에 체결된 담보신탁계약과 상호보완적 효력을 가진다. ② 본 계약은 계약 체결 이후 다음 각 호에서 정한 시행자, 시공사, 대출자, 대리사무신탁사 상호간에 체결하는 계약 및 사업진행을 위해 각 당사자가 체결하는 개별계약에 우선하여 적용된다. ③ 시행자, 시공사, 대출자, 대리사무신탁사는 제2항에 따른 각종 계약을 체결함에 있어 그 내용이 본 계약 당사자에게 효력이 미치는 경우에는 당사자 간에 사전협의를 거친 후 계약을 체결하며 전 항의 계약 이외 시행자가 체결하는 개별계약은 본 계약을 위배할 수 없다. 제6조(공사대금 지급) ⑤ 시공사 공소외 3 회사는 공사대금의 미지급을 이유로 본 사업의 신축건물에 대하여 유치권을 행사할 수 없으며 공소외 3 회사의 하수급인이 유치권을 행사하는 경우 공소외 3 회사의 책임으로 해제하여야 한다. 제8조(사업시행권 및 채무의 인수) ① 시행자 피고인 1은 본 계약에서 정한 경우나 대출자 공소외 1 새마을금고, 대리사무신탁사 공소외 2 신탁회사 및 시공사 공소외 3 회사가 동의하는 경우 외에는 사업부지 등 일체의 사업자산을 제3자에게 처분하거나 담보로 제공하지 못한다. 제13조(자금의 조달 및 관리운용) ② 분양수입금 등으로 사업 제비용을 충당하지 못하는 경우에 시행자는 자체적으로 자금을 조달하여 본 사업의 사업비에 충당하여야 한다. 제14조(자금의 집행방법) ① 분양수입금관리계좌 또는 자금관리계좌에서 자금을 인출·집행하고자 할 경우에는 시행자 피고인 1은 시공사 공소외 3 회사 및 대출자 공소외 1 새마을금고의 동의를 득하여 자금집행을 공소외 2 신탁회사에 서면으로 요청한다. 제17조(준공 후 이전등기 등) ① 준공된 건물은 준공 즉시 공소외 2 신탁회사의 주관으로 보존등기를 완료하고 준공된 건물에 대하여 공소외 2 신탁회사를 수탁자로 하는 추가신탁계약(담보신탁 또는 처분신탁 등)을 체결하여야 하며, 피고인 1과 공소외 3 회사는 적극 협조하여야 한다. 단, 준공 시에도 대출자 공소외 1 새마을금고와 시공사 공소외 3 회사의 시행자 피고인 1에 대한 채권이 잔존하는 경우, 공소외 1 새마을금고를 1순위, 공소외 3 회사를 2순위 우선수익자로 지정한다. ⑦ 시행자 피고인 1은 추가신탁 및 본 사업부동산(토지 및 건물)의 소유권이전에 필요한 서류를 사전에 공소외 2 신탁회사에 제출한다.

D. Around September 6, 2011, Nonindicted Co. 3 commenced construction works and completed the framework construction of the first floor above ground, and ceased construction works around November 23, 201, and waived construction works around November 30, 201 after Defendant 1 received notification of termination of the contract from Defendant 1.

E. On December 8, 2011, Defendant 1 entered into a contract with Nonindicted Co. 5 Co. 5 (hereinafter “Nonindicted Co. 5”) under which the cost of the construction of the remaining new building is KRW 1.980 million (including value-added tax), May 8, 2011, and May 30, 2012 when the scheduled completion date of construction works is determined as contract period, Defendant 1 entered into a contract with the Nonindicted Co. 5 Co. 5 (hereinafter “Nonindicted Co. 5”) for the construction of the building, and paid KRW 100 million each after the completion of the 6th structural frame, the completion of the 8th structural frame, and the completion of the 8th structural frame, and the remainder of the construction cost shall be paid within two months after the completion of the construction work at the cost of construction except for taxes and public charges (bank loans, operating expenses, etc.).

F. (1) On September 201, Defendant 1, Nonindicted 2 trust company, Nonindicted 3 company, and the Victim’s Credit Union (hereinafter “Defendant 1”) removed the consent of the Victim’s Credit Union in a method of fund enforcement, and “Defendant 1 entered into the first change contract for fund management agency contracts to the effect that it is requested in writing to Nonindicted 2 trust company by obtaining the consent of Nonindicted 3 company.”

2) On February 15, 2012, Defendant 1, Nonindicted Company 2, Nonindicted Company 5, and the Victim’s Treasury concluded a secondary change agreement with the effect that, among the parties to the initial loan management agency contract, the Defendant 1, Nonindicted Company 2, Nonindicted Company 5 and Nonindicted Company 5 changed Nonindicted Company 3, the contractor, to Nonindicted Company 5.

G. Since then, Nonindicted Co. 5 completed the 8th anniversary of Apr. 2, 2012 construction work, and received a total of 300 million won from Nonindicted Co. 2 trust companies under the said contract and the fund management agency contract (i.e., KRW 100 million on Feb. 17, 2012 + KRW 100 million on Mar. 2, 2012 + KRW 100 million on Apr. 2, 2012).

H. On May 8, 2012, Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 agreed to change the name of the owner of the instant building to Defendant 2, as a security for lending the remainder of the construction cost of KRW 1.68 billion (= KRW 1.980 million - KRW 300 million) between Defendant 2 and Defendant 2, and written a written agreement with the following contents.

The balance of the construction cost of Non-Indicted Party 5 is paid in full by Defendant 2.2) The balance remaining after deducting the amount already paid from the construction cost under the original construction contract shall be fixed as the total cost payable.3) When Defendant 1 pays the amount payable to Defendant 2 within three months after completion, 12% interest per annum shall be paid monthly, 15% interest per annum shall be paid every six months after completion, and the total repayment period shall not exceed one year after completion.4) When the owner of the building completes the change to Defendant 2, this agreement becomes effective.

I. (1) According to the above agreement, Defendant 2 reported the change of the name of the building owner on May 2012, but returned on the ground that the land owner and the building owner are different. In other words, Defendant 1’s certificate of personal seal impression and written consent to change the name of the building owner attached thereto, attached to Defendant 1’s written consent to change the name of the building owner, and Defendant 2 changed the name of the building owner on June 8, 2012 from Defendant 1 to Defendant 2.

2) Since July 30, 2012, Defendant 2 filed an application for approval of use on July 30, 2012, and obtained approval for use on August 28, 2012, and completed registration of ownership preservation on the above building in its name on August 29, 2012.

3. Judgment on Defendant 1’s assertion

The crime of breach of trust is established by a person who administers another's business by acquiring property benefits through an unlawful act of breach of duty and causing damage to another person who is the subject of the business. The subjective requirement is the perception of breach of duty and the perception that the person's or the third party acquires his or her profit and thereby causes damage to the principal.

In light of the above legal principles, Defendant 1 received KRW 1 billion from the victim’s safe to raise funds for new construction of the building of this case, and entered into a security trust agreement and fund management agency contract. Accordingly, despite the duty to cooperate in preserving the property of the victim’s safe by completing registration of trust with the first beneficiary for additional guarantee of loan obligations to the victim’s safe, Defendant 2 did not change the name of the owner of the building in its name and caused the risk of pecuniary loss to be caused to the victim’s right to benefit as collateral. Furthermore, Defendant 1 did not appear to have suffered from the change of the seller’s right to benefit of the building as collateral, and Defendant 1 did not appear to have been aware of the existence of an inevitable change in the terms of the content of the security trust agreement and fund management agent agreement, and Defendant 1 did not unilaterally acquired the building of this case as collateral to Defendant 2, which is the sole owner of the building at the time of signing the agreement with the victim’s prior consent or consent, and there was no probability that it would have been any change in the owner’s motive and degree of damage to the land.

4. Judgment on Defendant 2’s assertion

Since the crime of breach of trust is established by a person who administers another's business in violation of his/her duty to obtain or have a third party obtain pecuniary benefits, the subject of the crime of breach of trust is a person who has a position or status to handle another's business. In this case, an act in violation of his/her duty includes any act in violation of a fiduciary relationship with the principal by failing to perform an act naturally expected to not do so under the provisions of law, terms of a contract or the good faith principle, or by doing an act expected not to do so, in light of specific circumstances, such as the content and nature of the business to be handled, and it is not necessary to determine whether such an act is legally effective. Meanwhile, property damage includes not only cases where it actually causes property damage, but also cases where it causes the risk of actual property damage, and it should be determined from an economic perspective, not from an actual judgment in relation to the principal's property condition, and therefore, even if the act in violation of law becomes null and void, it constitutes a crime of breach of trust with the intention of 10th offender or 9th offender.

In light of the above legal principles, in light of all the following circumstances, Defendant 2’s participation in the entire process of breach of trust and actively participated in the process before Defendant 1’s act of breach of trust. Ultimately, Defendant 2 constitutes a co-principal of breach of trust. Accordingly, Defendant 2 and his defense counsel’s assertion is rejected.

1) 먼저, 변경된 시공사인 공소외 5 회사의 실질적 경영주가 누구인지 여부에 관하여 보건대, ① 피고인 2는 ‘고양시 (주소 4 생략)’을 본점으로 하는 공소외 16 주식회사(이하 ‘공소외 16 회사’라 한다)의 대표이사로, 그 처인 공소외 19는 ‘서울 (주소 5 생략)(2007년경 이후 휴업상태)’을 본점으로 하는 공소외 16 회사의 대표이사로 각 등재되어 있고, 공소외 16 회사의 인터넷 홈페이지에는 본사 주소를 ‘고양시 (주소 4 생략)’, 서울사무소 주소를 ‘서울 (주소 5 생략)’으로 각 게재하고 있으며, 피고인 2가 CEO 인사말을 남기고 있는 점, ② 공소외 5 회사는 공소외 16 회사의 서울사무소 주소와 같은 곳에 본점 주소를 두고 있다가 이 사건 수사 개시 후 주소변경등기를 하였고, 공소외 16 회사의 사내이사 공소외 14, 사외이사 공소외 20은 공소외 5 회사의 사외이사, 감사로 각 등재되어 임원이 중복되며, 공소외 14는 공소외 16 회사 및 공소외 5 회사의 법인인감을 관리하며 경리업무를 함께 수행하였고, 공소외 16 회사 홈페이지에는 공소외 5 회사가 공소외 21 주식회사와 함께 그 계열회사로 게재되어 있다가 이 사건 수사 개시 후 삭제된 점, ③ 공소외 5 회사 발생주식 중 공소외 19(피고인 2의 처)가 10.77%, 공소외 14(등기이사)와 공소외 22(공소외 16 회사 직원)가 각 14.62%, 공소외 23(피고인 2의 친동생)이 12.31%의 각 지분을 보유하고 있다가 이 사건 수사 개시 후 공소외 5 회사의 등기상 대표이사인 공소외 8, 공소외 16 회사 직원들인 공소외 24, 공소외 25로 주주가 변동되었으며, 공소외 8은 매달 300~350만 원 가량의 급여를 받고 있는 점, ④ 피고인 2는 검찰조사에서 ‘2012. 2.경부터 건축주명의를 변경해 주면 피고인 1에게 공사대금을 지원하겠다고 하였으며 피고인 1이 이를 받아들여 2012. 4.경부터 공사대금을 지원하였다’는 취지로 진술한 점, ⑤ 피고인 2는 건축주명의변경에 관한 2012. 5. 8.자 합의 이전인 2012. 4. 4. 1억 원, 같은 달 12일 1억 6,700만 원을 시공사인 공소외 5 회사 계좌로 각 송금한 것을 비롯하여 2012. 9. 28.까지 공소외 16 회사 또는 자신의 명의로 공소외 5 회사에 공사대금 합계 16억 8,300만 원을 송금한 점, ⑥ 피고인 2는 2012. 5. 8. 피고인 1과 건축주명의변경에 관한 합의를 한 후 건축주명의변경이 이루어지기도 전에 자신을 도급인으로 하고 공소외 5 회사를 수급인으로 하는 2012. 5. 8.자 표준도급계약서를 작성한 점, ⑦ 이 사건 건물의 관리인 공소외 6의 증언내용(‘공소외 5 회사의 실사주를 피고인 2로 알고 있으며 피고인 2는 공사대금을 지원하기 전에도 종종 현장을 방문하였다. 피고인 2는 피고인 1과 공소외 5 회사 간의 도급계약 체결 시 참석하였다.’는 취지), 공범인 피고인 1의 증언내용(공소외 5 회사의 실사주를 피고인 2로 알고 있고 피고인 2와는 5~6년 전부터 사업상 친분이 있었는데 피고인 2의 상계동 아파트 신축사업 당시 공소외 8을 공소외 16 회사 부장으로 인사받은 적이 있다. 처음에 피고인 2에게 신축공사를 부탁하였다가 거절당한 후 공소외 3 회사에 도급주었고 공소외 3 회사가 공사를 중단하자 피고인 2에게 다시 잔여 공사를 부탁하였는데 ‘공소외 16 회사는 삼척에 아파트를 짓고 있어 물량이 많고, 공소외 5 회사는 계열사인데 실적이 없으니 수주하여 실적을 올리기 위해 그쪽으로 하겠다’고 하여 공소외 5 회사와 도급계약을 체결하게 되었다. 공소외 5 회사와 도급계약을 체결할 당시부터 피고인 2와 공사비 지급방법과 신탁계약 등에 대해 구체적으로 상의하였고, 피고인 2가 실질적 대표자로서 도급계약 체결 시 참석하였다는 취지), ⑧ 피고인 2가 공소외 5 회사에 대여 또는 지원한 것이라고 하는 공사대금 일부는 피고인 2가 대표이사로 있는 공소외 16 회사의 계좌 등으로 다시 흘러 들어간 것으로 보이고, 위 피고인은 공소외 5 회사에 송금한 거액의 공사대금에 대해 별도로 그 내역이나 실제 사용처 등을 사후에 확인한 적도 없었던 것으로 보이는 점 등을 종합해 볼 때, 이 사건 건물 신축공사의 변경된 시공사인 공소외 5 회사의 실질적인 경영주는 등기상 대표이사인 공소외 8이 아니라 피고인 2로 봄이 상당하고, 위 피고인은 2011. 11. 말경 공소외 3 회사의 공사 중단 무렵 피고인 1로부터 나머지 공사를 부탁받게 되자 이를 받아들여 도급계약 체결 시부터 적극 관여함으로써 건물 신축공사를 사실상 주도적으로 지휘했던 것으로 보인다.

2) Next, as to whether Defendant 2 participated in the conclusion of the second amendment of the Fund Management Agency contract for the change of the construction project, there are circumstances in which Defendant 7 and Defendant 1 stated that the date of the conclusion of the said contract was not memoryd at any time or that the date of the said contract was somewhat confused. However, as to the place of the conclusion (the office of the △△ building, which is the concurrent office of Nonindicted Company 16 and Nonindicted Company 5), four persons including Defendant 1, Defendant 2, Nonindicted Company 2, Nonindicted Company 7, and Nonindicted Company 8, etc. on the registration of Nonindicted Company 5, were present, and the victim’s employees were present at the safe meeting, and there was no particular contradiction and promotion for each party’s participation in the conclusion of the said contract (as to the fact that each party participated in the second amendment contract for the change of the construction project, Nonindicted Party 2 was present at the time of signing the contract for the change of the construction project, and in particular, Defendant 2 appears to have been present at the time of the change of the construction project.

3) Furthermore, when considering that the date of the second revision contract is when and after the date of signing the contract, Nonindicted 7 and Defendant 1’s respective legal statements, draft form, application form for seal use, business trip registration, request form for self-sufficiency, and certificate of seal impression of the corporation, Defendant 1’s request for change of the construction work to Nonindicted 2 trust company on February 14, 2012, Nonindicted 2 trust company’s second revision contract for change of the construction work on February 14, 2012, Nonindicted 1 and Nonindicted 2’s second revision contract for change of the construction work on February 15, 2012, Nonindicted 1 and Nonindicted 2: around 7:48, Nonindicted 7: Nonindicted 17:4 of the same day when Nonindicted 7’s request for approval was made, Nonindicted 2, 2000,000 won, and Defendant 1’s request for change of the construction work on February 15, 2012 to 20:0,000

4) As to the recognition of Defendant 2’s act of breach of trust, ① as the de facto management owner of Nonindicted Co. 5, Defendant 2 consistently testified to the effect that, as well as to participate from the conclusion of the contract, Defendant 1 was directly involved in the process of concluding the second amendment of the Fund Management Agency contract to change the Si to Nonindicted Co. 5; ② Nonindicted Co. 5 consented to Defendant 1’s request for funding and received KRW 300 million in total from Nonindicted Co. 2 trust company until the completion of the 8th anniversary of April 2012; ③ Some of the statements made by Nonindicted Co. 7 and Defendant 1 (including Nonindicted Co. 7, at the time of the second amendment of the Fund Management Agency contract, at the time of the conclusion of the second amendment of the Fund Management Agency contract, Nonindicted Co. 2 was present and confirmed with Defendant 1’s signature at the time of the second amendment of the Fund Management Agency contract; ② Nonindicted Co. 2 was aware of the trust relationship between Defendant 1 and the trust company in the name of the victim.

5) 건축주명의변경에 이르게 된 동기와 경위에 관하여 보건대, ① 피고인 1은 공소외 3 회사가 신축공사를 중단·포기하자 사업상 친분이 있던 피고인 2에게 나머지 공사를 부탁하여 위 피고인이 실질적 경영주인 공소외 5 회사와 도급계약을 체결한 후 시공사를 변경하였고, 이후 피고인 2가 2012. 2.경부터 자금지원의 조건으로 건축주명의변경을 계속 제의했던 것으로 보이는 점, ② 공소외 5 회사는 3층 골조공사 마감 후, 6층 골조공사 마감 후, 8층 골조공사 마감 후 각 1억 원씩 지급받고, 잔금은 준공 후 2개월 이내에 금융대출로 지급받기로 약정하였는바, 8층 골조공사를 마치고 2012. 4. 하순경 공사를 주12) 중단 할 때까지 자금관리대리사무계약에 따라 피해자 금고의 대출금을 재원으로 한 사업자금 집행으로 공소외 2 신탁회사로부터 합계 3억 원의 공사대금을 지급받았고 그때까지 지체된 공사대금은 없었던 점, ③ 2012. 4. 2. 이후 공소외 2 신탁회사의 자금집행계좌 잔액이 약 1,300만 원에 불과하여 더 이상 공사대금 집행이 어렵게 되었고 동일인 대출한도를 이유로 피해자 금고로부터 추가대출도 받을 수 없게 된 점, ④ 자금관리대리사무계약에 의하면 공소외 5 회사는 공사기간 내에 건물을 책임지고 준공할 의무를 지고, 공사대금의 미지급을 이유로 신축건물에 대하여 유치권을 행사할 수 없으며 피해자 금고를 제1순위 우선수익자로 지정하여 신축건물을 신탁하는 것에 적극 협조하도록 약정하였고, 시공사인 공소외 5 회사는 제2순위 우선수익자로 지정받게 되었던 점, ⑤ 피고인 2는 피고인 1의 자금투입 요청에 따라 2012. 4. 4. 1억 원, 같은 달 12일 1억 6,700만 원을 공사대금으로 공소외 5 회사 계좌로 송금하였고, 이후 피고인 1이 당초 구두로 약속한 건축명의변경을 공사대금 담보로 이행하지 않자 피고인 2에 의하여 공소외 5 회사가 2012. 4. 하순경 도급계약을 위반하여 공사를 중단한 것으로 보이는 점, ⑥ 이후 피고인 2는 2012. 5. 8. 피고인 1과 건축명의변경 합의서를 작성하였고 2012. 5. 25.부터 비로소 다시 공소외 16 회사 또는 자기 명의로 공소외 5 회사에 송금하는 방법으로 공사대금을 지급한 점, ⑦ 건축주명의인이 사용승인 이후 곧바로 소유권보존등기를 마칠 수 있음을 잘 알고 있는 피고인 1이 당시 채무상황이나 분양사업 진행상황에 비추어 자칫 건물 소유권을 상실할 수도 있는 위험을 무릅쓰고 건축주명의변경을 담보로 먼저 제의했다고는 선뜻 납득이 가지 않는 점, ⑧ 피고인 1과 피고인 2의 일부 검찰진술과 피고인 1의 일부 법정진술 내용(피고인 2가 먼저 공사대금을 빌려주는 조건으로 건축주명의변경 내지 신축건물의 소유권을 담보로 요구하였다는 취지) 등을 종합해 볼 때, 피고인 2가 거래상 우월한 지위를 부당하게 이용하여 공사대금 지원 조건으로 건축주명의변경을 적극적으로 먼저 요구했던 것으로 보이고(이에 배치되는 증인 공소외 8의 일부 법정진술, 피고인 2의 수사기관 진술은 믿지 아니한다), 이와 같이 피고인 2가 자신의 이익을 관철시키기 위해 펼친 적극적이고 집요한 담보요구와 그에 맞물려서 공사대금 마련을 위한 피고인 1의 개인적인 이익 추구가 서로 상응하여 결국 건축주명의변경에 이르게 된 것으로 봄이 상당하다.

6) In light of the aforementioned overall circumstances, Defendant 2 was involved from the time of signing a contract between Defendant 1 and Nonindicted Company 5, and even though being aware of the fact that the instant building was subject to an additional trust for guaranteeing the priority interest of the victim’s safe interest, where Defendant 1 violated the obligation of the additional security trust in his name, Defendant 2 may be deemed to have actively participated in the process of taking part in the entire process of Defendant 1’s breach of trust, such as an agreement on the change of name of the owner on May 8, 2012, and an agreement on the change of name of the owner on the secondary change of the fund management agent contract, an agreement on the change of name of the owner on May 8, 2012, including an agreement on the change of name of the owner, construction participant, application for approval for use, and registration on the preservation of ownership, and such act of Defendant 2 constitutes a joint principal offense of the crime of breach of trust.

2. Scope of recommended sentences according to the sentencing criteria;

[Determination of Punishment] Type 3 (not less than KRW 500,00 but less than KRW 5 billion) of the Embezzlement and Breach of Trust Act

【Determination of Recommendation Area】 Basic Area

[Recommendation Scope of Punishment] Two to Five years of imprisonment (Before mediation according to the applicable sentences of law)

[Scope of Estimated Recommendations] Three to Five years of imprisonment (Adjustment according to the Law Applicable Punishment)

【General Convicts】

(A) there is no serious element

(D) In a case not an occupational breach of trust;

3. Determination of sentence (three years of imprisonment, respectively); and

The crime of this case committed by the Defendants is highly serious in light of its content and consequence, degree of damage, etc. (where the Defendants have filed several lawsuits, such as denial of criminal intent, but it is difficult to accept such change in light of the motive and circumstance of the crime of this case duly adopted and investigated evidence). Nevertheless, considering the fact that the Defendants did not make specific efforts to recover damage to the victim’s safe until now, the Defendants should be strictly punished. However, there are some circumstances that may be taken into account the motive and circumstance leading to the crime of this case, the Seoul Northern District Court 2012Ga7124 decided against the Defendant 2; the Defendant’s crime of this case was committed on November 7, 2013, including change of the name of the owner of the building; the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for the same kind of crime of this case; the Defendant’s right to request cancellation of registration of registration of preservation of ownership on the building of this case to Defendant 1; the Defendant’s right to request cancellation of registration of preservation of ownership may be deemed to have been caused by the victim’s right to property damage.

Judges Lee Jin-hun (Presiding Judge)

1) There is a dispute between the parties as to when the date of concluding the second modified contract is when and when the date of signing the contract, it is reasonable to deem that the contract was concluded on February 15, 2012, when comprehensively considering each of the descriptions in the draft form, the application form for use of seals, the approval form for business trip, the application form for registration of business trip, the application form for self-sufficiency (Consent), and the certificate of seal imprint of the corporation (However, the victim’s safe signed the second modified contract on February 16, 2012, which is the date following the conclusion of the contract, after prior consultation with Nonindicted 2 trust companies).

2) According to Defendant 1’s partial statement, the first written agreement (Evidence No. 8, including the seal of Nonindicted 18, the witness) submitted by Defendant 2 is the original, and the written agreement No. 43, the evidence list No. 43, appears to have been amended or amended after the mutual agreement.

(3) On June 12, 2012, Defendant 2 filed a civil petition on the website of the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs under the title “in the event that the owner of the land and the building differs, the question on the change of the owner’s name”.

(4) Defendant 1’s prosecutorial statement to the effect that “Nonindicted 1 notified in advance of the change of the name of the owner” is difficult to believe in light of Nonindicted 4’s legal statement and investigation agency’s statement.

(5) Although Defendant 1 had ordered and threatened Defendant 2 to change the name of the owner, Defendant 1 did not have any evidence to acknowledge it, and even if Defendant 1 actually forced and threatened the discontinuance of construction, it is merely a subjective perception that suffered from economic interests.

(6) Defendant 2’s defense counsel argues that Defendant 1’s act does not constitute a constituent element of a crime of breach of trust. However, as seen earlier, Defendant 1’s act constitutes a crime of breach of trust inasmuch as Defendant 1’s act constitutes “a person who administers another’s business” inasmuch as he is in a position to cooperate for the protection and management of property interest, such as the guarantee of preferential rights to the instant building for the sake of securing the victim’s loan credit by actively cooperating with the achievement of the purpose of the relevant trust agreement based on a high level of trust relationship arising from a security trust agreement and a fund management agent agreement based on a loan contract. Furthermore, Defendant 1’s act constitutes a crime of breach of trust inasmuch as the risk of property damage is caused by the victim’s right to receive preferential rights to the building as a security, in violation of

7) Examining each seal affixed on the second modified contract comparison, as the attorney’s point of view, there is room to view that there is a difference between Defendant 1 and Nonindicted Co. 5’s seal imprinting the seal imprinting of Nonindicted Co. 5, and accordingly, it may not be made on a single spot. However, in light of the content of the second modified contract (the purport that “in the end, five copies of the modified contract are prepared, and one copy is kept, and the remainder is used at the time of registration,” and the seal use register of Nonindicted Co. 2’s trust company (in addition, five copies of the contract) and part of Nonindicted Co. 7’s legal statement (the purport that five copies are written), it is difficult to exclude the credibility of the two or more different seal imprints being kept and used, in particular, even if there is no experience and attacking statement on the credibility of only one seal imprinting.

Note 8) The fact that the date of issuance of a certificate of seal imprint of Nonindicted Co. 5’s corporate body is “ February 15, 2012” also indicates that the same day was affixed with the seal imprint of the contract.

9) At the office of Nonindicted 2 Trust Company (the address 6 omitted) up to the office of Nonindicted 5 Company (the office of Nonindicted 5 Company (the address 7 omitted) up to the Seoul (the address 7 omitted), Nonindicted 21% of subways and the number of cars such as taxiss before and after 25 minutes.

10) Nonindicted 7 testified that “Around 6 p.m. on the day of the contract, Nonindicted 7 testified that the office will be memoryd as having completed the contract at least 7 p.m.”

(11) Defendant 2 made a statement in the prosecutorial investigation that “only finites finites finites finites finites finites finites finites finites finites finites finites finites finites 8 or finites finites fins fin

Note 12) Nonindicted 6 and Defendant 1 stated to the effect that “the construction was interrupted immediately before the completion of the vehicle” in this Court.