The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The agreement between the Defendant and F on the basis of an agreement between the Defendant and F on the process of lending and borrowing of money (hereinafter collectively referred to as “the process of this case”) written out by each transfer No. 65 of the 2012 and No. 102 of the 2012 constitutes a typical movable property transfer agreement that: (a) F owns, in the manner of possession and amendment, the ginseng on “the purpose of transfer security” of each of the instant process certificates (hereinafter referred to as “the ginseng of this case”); and (b) F reserves the right to dispose of the ginseng of this case at the time when the Defendant’s debt is in default.

Therefore, the Defendant was obligated to keep and manage the ginseng of this case in order for F, a creditor, to achieve the purpose of the security, and was in the position of a person in charge of its affairs in relation to F. The Defendant’s “person in charge of another’s business,” and the Defendant’s “a person in charge of another’s business,” under the process deed of this case, was planned to dispose of part of the ginseng of this case to Korea Tro Corporation or mobilization F&B; and

The same applies even if there is still.

B. Meanwhile, the Defendant transferred part of the ginseng of this case to Ma who is not the Republic of Korea or mobilization finance & development;B; and some ginseng was disposed of in advance in the past five years rather than the six-year period as scheduled in the instant process deed. Such an act constitutes an act of unfairly reducing the value of security and constitutes an act of breach of trust.

(c)

Nevertheless, the lower court acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged on the ground that the agreement based on the instant fair deed between the Defendant and F is not based on the transfer security agreement, or that the status of the person who administers another’s business cannot be recognized, was erroneous in misapprehending the legal doctrine as to the person who administers another’s

2. Determination

A. Summary of the facts charged 1) The whereabouts of both Gangwon-gu C.