The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although Defendant 1 does not correspond to “a person who administers another’s business,” the principal agent of the crime of breach of trust, Defendant 1 is guilty of this part of the facts charged, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine. 2) The lower court’s sentence of unfair sentencing (6 months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence (six months of imprisonment) of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the Defendant’s assertion of misapprehension of legal principles

A. A. Around October 4, 2018, the summary of the facts charged as to the charge of breach of trust entered into a loan agreement with the Bank of Korea at the end of half of the Industrial Bank of Korea located in Ansan-si, Seoul-si (278), whereby the Defendant entered into a loan agreement with the Bank of Korea during the loan period from October 4, 2018 to October 1, 2019. In order to secure the above loan on the same day, the Defendant continued to keep the collateral ceiling at KRW 125,40,000 for two CNC Line Co., Ltd. (three model name SK-200, market value of KRW 104,50,000) owned by the Defendant.

The Defendant fulfilled his duty of care as a good manager in accordance with the above agreement, thereby having a duty to keep and manage the object of transfer security.

Nevertheless, on January 2019, the Defendant violated the above duties and caused creditors, who are unable to know the name of the Defendant’s factory located in Sinsi-si, Sin Sinsi-si, to bring the subject matter of transfer security under the pretext of debt repayment.

Accordingly, the defendant violated his duty as a person who has established the security for transfer, thereby acquiring property benefits equivalent to KRW 46,400,000 by arbitrarily disposing of the property transferred for transfer, and causing property damage equivalent to the same amount to the victim.

B. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged by compiling the evidence as indicated in its judgment.

(c) The movable property owned by the obligor in order to secure the monetary obligation of the obligor.