The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the above punishment for a period of two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

1. According to the summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles), the court below acquitted the defendant on the ground that the use of the vehicle provided as security by the defendant to E was transferred to the damaged company, thereby making it impossible to grasp the location of the vehicle and thereby making it impossible to exercise the mortgage of the victimized company. However, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles and misapprehending the legal principles on the ground that it is difficult for the damaged company to exercise the right to make a confluence as to the said vehicle by the mortgagee may be deemed to be due to the fact that the traffic accident was managed voluntarily by E or the non-registered vehicle and

2. Determination

A. On December 11, 2009, the Defendant purchased CMW car under the name of D at the trading company of mutually influent used cars located in Seoul Metropolitan City, the Defendant borrowed KRW 31 million from the victim A Capital Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “victim Co., Ltd.”) located in Seo-gu Daejeon-gu, Daejeon-gu, Seoul, and appropriated the money for the purchase of the said car. The Defendant registered the establishment of a collateral security right with the mortgagee’s damage company, bond value of KRW 31 million in the said car purchased by the Defendant as collateral. As such, the Defendant had a duty to keep the said car for the purpose of security until the loan is repaid.

The Defendant borrowed KRW 10 million from E on December 2010, in violation of the above duties, from E on the street, and made it impossible for the Defendant to realize the mortgage of the victimized company by obtaining the possession of the said vehicle as security from him.

Accordingly, the Defendant acquired the pecuniary advantage equivalent to KRW 10 million borrowed from E, and suffered a loss equivalent to KRW 31 million from the damaged company.

B. On the grounds indicated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that the instant facts charged constitute a case where there is no proof of crime and thus acquitted.

(c).