A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

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

Criminal facts

On November 19, 2012, the Defendant: (a) provided the victim with the aforementioned D factory site, factory site, office, and machinery stored therein as a security for KRW 1.50 million borrowed from the injured party’s small and medium enterprise funds, etc. at the center of the injured party Kimhae-si, the Industrial Bank of Korea at Kimhae-si around November 19, 201; and (b) provided the victim with the aforementioned D factory site, factory, office, and machinery stored therein; and (c) provided the maximum amount of the claim as KRW 1.26 billion, the Defendant created a collateral security right pursuant to the “factory and Mining Foundation Mortgage Mortgage Act.”

In doing so, the Defendant: (a) sold around December 2015 Mtilling Machine, one Planoer, and one NC Mtiltiling Machine at KRW 30 million; (b) around April 2016, at KRW 20 million, 30,000,000, 1 unit and 1 unit of Rad Pla Driing Mtiline and 1 unit of Lariet at KRW 20,000; and (c) around October 2016, 3 unit of Lari and CNC Planoer (5 side processing machines) at KRW 48,800,000.

Attached Form

See the crime sight list, the Defendant transferred 9 machinery equivalent to 378,976,000 won to the Defendant’s appraisal constituting a factory foundation which was the object of a mortgage in accordance with the “factory and Mining Foundation Mortgage Act”.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement made by the police for E;

1. A copy of contract for creation of collateral security;

1. A copy of an appraisal statement;

1. Each investigation report (to listen to the Eline statement of the victimized Company’s complaint staff, and to attach a list of factory mortgage machinery of this case) / The Defendant and the defense counsel asserted to the effect that the Defendant and the defense counsel purchased the machinery No. 9 of serial numbers by disposing of the machinery No. 2 and 3 with the consent of the injured party.

However, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the above 2 and 3 stories between the defendant and the victim's employees were in line with the above 2 and 3, but the victim's consent on the above disposition was not given, and in such a situation, the defendant's arbitrary consent was given.