The defendant shall be innocent.

1. Around December 2010, the summary of the facts charged: (a) the Defendant purchased D personal transport vehicles under C’s name; (b) borrowed KRW 30 million from the Llomon Savings Bank from the victim (the victim) Solomon Savings Bank to pay KRW 1,646,650 per month for 24 months; and (c) registered as a collateral security establishment for the said vehicle with the mortgagee’s right to claim KRW 30 million with the victim, the mortgagee’s right to claim KRW 30 million for the said vehicle; and (d) the obligation to keep the said vehicle until the loan is repaid.

Nevertheless, on December 31, 201, the Defendant borrowed KRW 10 million from E from E to transfer it as security at a place of the Government-Si, and thereby acquired pecuniary benefits equivalent to KRW 10 million borrowed from E, and suffered damage equivalent to KRW 30 million to the principal and interest of the loan to the victim.

2. Determination:

A. In a case where a mortgage is established on an automobile, the exchange value of the automobile is included in the mortgage, and even if the mortgager sells an automobile and its owner is different, it does not constitute a crime of breach of trust merely by the mortgager selling an automobile which is the object of the mortgage to another person, unless there are special circumstances.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2008Do3651 Decided August 21, 2008). B.

In light of the above legal principles, even if the Defendant offered the instant car as security by borrowing money from E, since it does not affect the victim’s right to collateral security, it is difficult to view that the Defendant’s act constitutes a crime of breach of trust.

However, as to whether the act of the defendant loses the value of the security and there are special circumstances where the crime of breach of trust is established, it is the identity of E, the other party to whom the defendant borrowed money and offered the instant vehicle as security.