beta
Text
The judgment below
The guilty portion shall be reversed.
Of the facts charged in the instant case, the charge of breach of trust is acquitted.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts (Defendant 1) 1: (a) the Defendant is required to prepare money to be invested from a joint businessman E to another person; (b) the Defendant is requested from a joint businessman E to present only, and each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet, such as Pakistan F, etc. (hereinafter referred to as “F real estate” by combining it; and (c) when only seven of them is referred to as “F land”.
(3) As to the assignment contract of the right to collateral security in the name of the Defendant, each of the above right to collateral security established as KRW 900 million with the maximum debt amount (hereinafter “instant right to collateral security”); each of the right to collateral security is registered as “registration”; and the said right to collateral security transfer contract is “the instant agreement”.
(2) The court below held that the crime of breach of trust is not established on the ground that, as stated in the facts charged, the Defendant did not have borrowed KRW 210 million from E as stated in the facts charged, and there was no means to conclude a transfer agreement to secure this. The amount of KRW 210 million alleged to have been leased to the Defendant is the sum of KRW 40 million contributed to the Defendant as part of the purchase price to AH, a seller of F land, around April 2005, and KRW 170 million contributed to the Defendant around August 2005, and KRW 100 million contributed to the Defendant around August 2005. Therefore, the Defendant does not actually fall under a person who administers another’s business, who is a duty to transfer the instant right to collateral security to B. (2) The Defendant did not obtain profits from the Defendant or a third party, and there was no loss from E, and since the Defendant’s transfer of the instant right to collateral security to G with the consent of the Defendant and the obligees, the court below’s decision was unlawful on the ground that the Defendant’s imprisonment was unlawful.
(b).