The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is not guilty, and the summary of the judgment of innocence is publicly notified.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Legal principles are merely a non-performance of civil liability, and the obligation to repay a loan itself does not constitute a crime of breach of trust since it is not the other party's business but the defendant's business.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. On July 15, 2011, the Defendant entered into a lease agreement with the payment of the deposit amount of KRW 160 million for the deposit of KRW 202,00,000 for the deposit of KRW 808,00 and KRW 202 for the deposit of KRW 16,00,000 for the deposit of KRW 50,00 from August 5, 2011 to August 5, 2013. At that time, the Defendant applied for the loan of KRW 120,000 for the loan of KRW 120,000 for the deposit of KRW 30,000 for the deposit of KRW 30,00 for the deposit of KRW 10,000 for the deposit of KRW 30,00 for the deposit of KRW 3

Therefore, the defendant had a duty to extinguish the right to claim the return of the above deposit which is the object of the pledge without the consent of the victim as the holder of the pledge right, or not to make any change detrimental to the rights of the pledgee.

Nevertheless, on July 2013, the Defendant is expected to leave directors to C.

After that, C sold the above apartment to E and F on September 2, 2013, and the date of this gold-gu, and on the same day, C and E, F, and H, etc. at the G Authorized Brokerage Office 101 of the above apartment commercial building in the above apartment building No. 101 on the same day, and C transferred the total of KRW 89,225,520 to the Defendant’s bank account in the name of the buyer, and received the remainder of KRW 50,774,480 from C.

Accordingly, the Defendant violated his duties, thereby causing damages equivalent to KRW 160,000,000,000 to the victim by extinguishing the right to claim the return of deposit money to the above lease contract and C, and acquired financial profits equivalent to the same amount.

B. The lower court’s judgment and the lower court’s judgment prior to the transmission are based on the relevant macroscopic evidence.