However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, which acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged in this case.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged in accordance with the record, the lower court’s judgment did not recognize that the above machinery was offered as security to the victim bank when the Defendant sells the instant machinery, and there is room for not knowing even dosus as to whether the said machinery was offered as security at the victim bank, and the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone was

The defendant was acquitted for lack of conviction.

According to the witness G’s legal statement, the Defendant’s and H’s respective police statements, each written contract for the establishment of a lower right, the list of sales facilities, and the response to the restoration of machinery and instruments to the original state, the following circumstances are revealed.

First, around August 25, 2011, the Defendant offered the site of the factory in the victim bank and the machinery provided as security together with the building around 58. In around 2012, the Defendant had 100 representative machinery in the factory E of the stock company around 2012, which began to dispose of the instant machinery. Since around 2011, the old machinery that the Defendant successively replaced from around 201 came to 30 to 40 units, it does not seem to have been managed separately from the machinery that the Defendant provided as ordinary security.

The defendant, from the source of UN, mainly conducted the production management, etc. at the site, and the vice president or the management director in charge of accounting or property management, etc. seems to have been in charge.

The Defendant around November 2015.