The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

However, the period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the fact that the Defendant and the defense counsel recognized a mistake and reflects it, partly repaid out of the loans to the victim company, and supported the aged and children with a good health, the lower court’s sentence that sentenced four months of imprisonment is too unreasonable.

B. In light of the fact that the Defendant purchased a heavy truck with a loan of KRW 35,500,000 from the victim company, in violation of the duty to store the above truck under the remaining condition of KRW 26,684,679, and thus, it is not good that the Defendant caused damage to the victim company because it provided it at will to other creditors and did not recover it. The Defendant could have been subject to criminal punishment, and the damage has not been compensated until the trial of the party, the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable.

2. We examine ex officio prior to judgment on the grounds for ex officio appeal.

On July 17, 2012, the prosecutor entered into a loan contract in the name of the Defendant in the name of the corporation in which the Defendant actually operated, with the content of 35,500,000 won, 36 months of the loan period, 19.9% per annum, and then purchased the Eth (C) truck with the loan borrowed from the damaged party, and on July 24, 2012, the Defendant established a right to collateral security on the said truck to the victim on July 24, 2012, and thus, the obligation to keep the said vehicle for the purpose of collateral security was to be preserved until the loan is returned.

Nevertheless, the Defendant violated the above duties in 2013, and KRW 5,000,000 from a person who is in a trade name in the old wave in Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.