Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the execution of each of the above penalties for one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Criminal facts

Defendant

A is the owner of G’s “here 24 tons cancer truck,” and Defendant B is the representative director of H Co., Ltd., the owner of the said truck.

Defendant

A around the end of March 2012, at the Hyundai Automobile Office located in Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Daedong, for the purpose of appropriating the above truck purchase price in the process of purchasing the truck in the name of H corporation, A borrowed KRW 142 million from the victim Hyundai Social Co., Ltd. located in Youngdong, Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government with the purchase price for new vehicles. Defendant B established a mortgage on the said truck with the mortgagee Hyundai Social Co., Ltd., Ltd., Ha, mortgager H, debtor, Defendant A, and claim value of KRW 9,40,000,000,000,000 won to secure the above loan obligation for new truck purchase. Thus, the Defendants had the duty to keep the above truck in accordance with the purpose of security until the loan is repaid.

Nevertheless, the Defendants conspired to borrow KRW 17 million from a person whose name cannot be known because he/she violated the above duties in the vicinity of the Diplomatic Station near the Diplomatic Station at the end of August 2012, and, by giving such a truck as security, acquired the pecuniary benefits equivalent to KRW 9.4 million, which is the bond value of the above mortgage, and suffered damage equivalent to the same amount to the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant B’s legal statement;

1. Legal statement of the witness B;

1. The suspect interrogation protocol of the defendant A by the police;

1. Defendant A’s assertion on the loan application, the register of automobiles, and the statement of acceptance of export declaration asserts that Defendant A had no intention of breach of trust, even if the instant vehicle transferred the instant vehicle to another person, even though it did not cause damage to the victim.

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the victim is the victim of the instant truck.