The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The accused shall announce the summary of the judgment of innocence.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal: Imposition of the penalty (limited to eight months in prison and two years in suspended execution);

2. Ex officio determination

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is a person who operated a stock company established for the purpose of wholesale and retail business of computers and peripheral devices in Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.

From December 22, 2015 to March 30, 2017, the Defendant: (a) in the warehouse E in Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, from around December 22, 2015 to around March 30, 2017, the Defendant provided the victim’s company with operating funds borrowed from the victim’s Co., Ltd. as a security for transfer; (b) around that time, the Defendant provided the victim’s company with the victim’s funds as a security for transfer; (c) KRW 5,500; (d) KRW 500; (e) 50; and (e) Qu Methm 1,00; (e) KRW 320KHD monitoring 455; and (e) KRW 3120 monitoring 250.

케이스 1,000개, 잭팟3 케이스 4,326개 시가 합계 2억 3,802만원 상당의 물품을 담보 목적에 맞도록 성실히 관리하여야 할 임무에 위반하여 별지 범죄일람표 기재와 같이 임의로 처분하였다.

As a result, the Defendant suffered damages equivalent to KRW 200,064,546, which is the principal and interest of the obligation at the time of disposal, and acquired financial benefits equivalent to the same amount.

B. The lower court’s judgment held that the Defendant’s legal statement, investigation report, etc. major

Based on evidence, the facts charged in this case were found guilty.

C. Even though a debtor provided a movable property to a creditor as a collateral for security in order to secure a pecuniary obligation, thereby imposing an obligation on the mortgagee, who is the creditor, to maintain and preserve the value of the collateral, or to not perform any act that interferes with the exercise of the security right by either disposing of the collateral or destroying or damaging the collateral, it cannot be deemed that the debtor, on the contrary, entrusts the creditor with the affairs based on a fiduciary relationship with the creditor, beyond an ordinary contractual relationship.

Therefore, the debtor is the subject of the breach of trust.