Defendant shall be punished by a fine of five million won.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant is a person who actually operated the “C” in Kimpo-si B.

On November 7, 2013, the Defendant entered into a contract with the victim D to provide 200 million won as a collateral for transfer of 2,000 won, which was used in C while borrowing KRW 200,000 from the victim D for operation funds of C, and drafted a fair deed.

Under the above contract, the Defendant had a duty to keep the object of transfer security in good faith until full repayment of the loan is made by the transferor so that the victim of the security interest can achieve the purpose of transfer security.

Nevertheless, on May 14, 2017, even if the Defendant did not fully repay the borrowed money in violation of the above duty, the Defendant calculated the foregoing mination machine at the above place as KRW 4,988,600 at the repayment price and repaid the borrowed money to E.

As a result, the Defendant violated his duty as a transferor collateral and sold the subject-matter of transfer collateral, thereby acquiring property benefits equivalent to KRW 4,988,600, and caused property damages equivalent to the same amount to the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of suspect concerning F by the prosecution;

1. Statement made by the police against D;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a copy of a process deed, a protocol not to execute seizure of movable property, or a copy of a deed of authentication;

1. Relevant Article 356 of the Criminal Act and Articles 355 (2) and 355 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of criminal facts, and the selection of fines;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. The reasoning for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the Criminal Procedure Act recognizes the Defendant’s mistake and reflects the sentencing. However, in light of the fact that the Defendant paid the machinery created by the victim as collateral to transfer to another creditor and takes 5 million won in return for the payment of the machinery to the other creditor, the victim did not recover the damage to the victim, and the victim’s wishing to do so, the amount of fine under the summary order is reasonable, and thus, the sentence is determined as per Disposition.