The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the embezzlement of the victim D (related to subparagraph 1(b)(1) of Article 1-2 of the Criminal Procedure Act), the victim D is F Co., Ltd. (the representative G; hereinafter “F”).

2) The loan claim against the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant claim”)

F) In order to secure the F’s security H (hereinafter “instant real property”) owned by the Chungcheongbuk-gun;

3) As to the right to collateral security (hereinafter “instant right to collateral security”)

2) The lower court determined that the lower court’s judgment was justifiable and did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the right to collateral security, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

) It seems that no distribution may be made at all in high school, and that it would be possible to receive distribution from the Defendant, who was aware of the fact in high school, through other procedures, such as corporeal movables provisional seizure, and in fact renounced the collection of the instant claim against F or the instant right to collateral security, and transferred it to the Defendant without compensation. The Defendant thereafter transferred Q Q (hereinafter “ Q”) as a senior mortgagee.

(2) The Defendant was not in the position of keeping the said dividends for the victim D, even if the Defendant formally acquired the instant claims and the right to collateral security from the victim D in order to collect the instant claims, and the Defendant was entitled to distribution and distribution at his own expense in the auction procedure regarding the instant real estate as a mortgagee, who was the transferee of the instant claim, by proceeding with the demand for distribution and the litigation of demurrer against distribution. Therefore, insofar as the Defendant received distribution as a creditor and the mortgagee of the instant claim acquired by the Defendant from the victim, the dividend was owned by the Defendant.