All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant

A. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment and the first instance judgment maintained by the lower court on July 1, 201 in light of the evidence duly admitted, regarding the guilty portion among the occupational breach of trust on the part of July 1, 201, the lower court planned the Defendant to use it as a factory site such as F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “F”) from the time the Defendant purchased E-si and seven parcels (hereinafter “instant land”) in the name of his wife M, and to transfer the ownership without any consideration. The lower court determined that the ownership was transferred according to the plan and determined to have been determined as the transfer of ownership of the instant land in the name of M, namely, when the registration of transfer of ownership of the instant land was maintained in the name of M, i.e., when the ownership was completed in the future such as F, the actual owner of the instant land was the Defendant, and since the document required for the establishment of the instant land was delivered to the person to be the mortgagee before the ownership was completed in the future such as F, etc., and the establishment of the instant mortgage was completed.

The Defendant’s assertion that the act of breach of trust does not constitute an act of breach of trust is dismissed. On the other hand, it is justifiable to calculate only the principal and interest as the amount of the existing collateral security right established on the instant land by July 1, 201, which is the date of the creation of the instant right to collateral security, and deduct it from the market value of the instant land in a state where no burden is imposed, and calculates the actual exchange value of the instant land provided for the act of breach of trust. In addition, there is no error by misapprehending the legal principles on the gift or collateral security in violation of logical and empirical rules.

B. The reasoning of the lower judgment and the first instance judgment maintained by the lower court as to the guilty portion of occupational embezzlement.