except that the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

The defendant is the representative of the (State)C in Daegu-gu B.

On June 30, 2010, the Defendant entered into a credit transaction agreement with the date when the credit expires at the multilateral branch of the Bank of Korea on May 19, 2015, and received a loan of KRW 170 million for small and medium enterprise facilities funds.

On June 30, 2010 and July 7, 2010, the Defendant entered into a contract for security transfer, which provides the victim with KRW 167,490,00,00 at the market price of machinery 9 points, such as the presses purchased with the above loan, as a security for transfer, in order to provide the security for the above loan.

In this case, the defendant has the duty to keep the above press machinery which is the object of the security at the business place and manage and maintain the security value so that the victim's security right can not be damaged or destroyed.

Nevertheless, on October 19, 2012, the Defendant violated the foregoing duties, and sold the said nine parts of machinery to KRW 85 million within the E Company located in Daegu Northern-gu, Daegu-gu, at will, around October 19, 2012.

As a result, the Defendant acquired pecuniary benefits equivalent to KRW 85,00,000 for sales proceeds of each of the above machinery, and caused damages equivalent to KRW 167,490,00 for outstanding loans, which are the market price of each of the above machinery, to the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Examination protocol of the accused by prosecution;

1. The statement of each police officer made to F and G;

1. Application of each certified transcript of corporate register, credit transaction agreement, ledger of loans, appraisal report, and written agreement of transfer for security shall be applicable;

1. Relevant Article 355 (2) and (1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of punishment for the crime, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. Taking account of the damage amount to the instant crime on the grounds of sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (a favorable circumstances among the reasons for sentencing below), the Defendant’s liability for the crime of this case was nonexistent, but the Defendant led to a confession of the instant crime, was in depth against the Defendant, and the Defendant repaid KRW 65,40,000 out of the amount of damage.