A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

The defendant operated E which manufactures electronic device parts in ethic City D.

On April 6, 2012, the Defendant received KRW 200,000 from the injured party at the 196 victim (state) in the middle of the Korean National Bank near the Korean National Bank, as the former citizen, from the injured party, the Defendant had a duty to keep the victim’s right to collateral in order for the injured party to achieve the purpose of collateral, on the ground that the Defendant established the right to collateral security under the Factory and Mining Foundation Mortgage Mortgage Act with respect to the machinery and appliances in E’s CNC LAHE 4 type.

Nevertheless, on September 2014, the Defendant sold E machinery and appliances in KRW 250 million, including the four types of the above machinery and appliances, to F of the company purchasing used machinery and appliances, which are located in the Silsi Construction and Transportation Corporation.

As such, the Defendant sold the four types of machinery and instruments with which the foregoing collateral security was established, and acquired the pecuniary benefits equivalent to KRW 55 million of the loan principal, and suffered the same loss to the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of partially the accused by the prosecution;

1. Protocol made by the police statements to G and certified copies of each real estate register attached thereto;

1. A complaint, a credit transaction agreement, a credit guarantee agreement, and a collateral security agreement [the defendant and his defense counsel attempted to sell the above machinery and tools and to repay the loan, and at the time there was a set of physical and personal security for the victim, so the intention of breach of trust is not recognized or the damage to property is not caused, and thus the crime of breach of trust is not established.

The argument is asserted.

The act of a factory mortgagee to dispose of factory machinery that has the effect of mortgage without the consent of the factory mortgagee to a third party is against his duty to keep the factory machinery in accordance with the purpose of security until the debt is repaid. In such a case, the crime of breach of trust against the factory mortgagee is established (Supreme Court Decision 2003 delivered on July 11, 2003).