A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a person who operates rubber product manufacturers with the trade name of Da Co., Ltd. in Kimhae-si.

From March 8, 2007 to June 16, 2014, the Defendant was granted a loan of 2 billion won from Gyeongnam Bank Co., Ltd. to KRW 2,600,000,000,000,000 from Gyeongnam Bank Co., Ltd. as collateral, and thus, the Defendant established a mortgage on the land, buildings, and factory machinery owned by the said company as well as 35 points, and thus, despite the duty to preserve the object until repayment of the said obligation, the Defendant breached such duty. From June 201, 201, two of the machinery and appliances offered as collateral by the said company as above, the total amount of KRW 50,637,00,00,000 for the production of carbon rubber chips equivalent to the total amount of KRW 35,00,000,000, and acquired economic benefits, and the victim suffered damages equivalent to the value of the said machinery and appliances.

Summary of Evidence

1. Legal statement of witness E;

1. Statement to E by the police;

1. An investigation report (the current status table of loans, site photographs, and certified copy of the register);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a complaint (a certified copy of the register, written opinion of examination, written agreement of credit transaction, written agreement on collateral security, detailed statement of evaluation of machines and instruments, written appraisal

1. Relevant Article 355 (2) and (1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of punishment for the crime, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. The reason for the sentencing of Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act [Scope of Recommendation] 1 type (100 million won), the area of mitigation (1 to 10 months), the area of punishment (10 months), and the case where significant damage is recovered [decision of sentence] / Although the defendant has committed a crime of breach of trust by disposing of a security without the consent of the secured party without permission of the secured party, he/she has not committed a crime of breach of trust, there is no previous conviction in addition to the fine, and he/she has agreed with the injured party. In addition, the punishment is determined as ordered by taking full account of all the conditions of sentencing as shown in the arguments, such as the defendant's age