A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a person who is engaged in gold production business under the trade name of "D" in Si interesting City C.

On October 10, 2014, the Defendant: (a) obtained a loan of KRW 150,000,000 from a new bank branch located in Sinpo-si, Sinpo-ro 2,00,000, from a new bank branch located in Sinpo-ro 2,51,000; and (b) provided one machine (F660M) owned by the Defendant as collateral for transfer by an amendment of possession in order to secure monetary liability; (c) the Defendant had the duty to keep and manage the said machine as a good manager’s duty for the victim until the repayment of the obligation.

Nevertheless, on April 2016, the Defendant violated the above duties and arbitrarily disposed of the machinery by transferring it to the obligee who is not in the name of the said D’s workplace as a substitute for payment.

As a result, the Defendant violated his duties, and thus, the market value of the machinery is 92,50,000 won.

The victim acquired a considerable amount of profit, and suffered a loss equivalent to the same amount.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police for E;

1. A statement of the contract for transfer security, the list of transferred collateral, the electronic tax invoice, the credit transaction agreement, and the inquiry of transaction details;

1. Application of the photographic Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. It is recognized that there is no person who has the basic area (from April to January, 199) (no person who has been sentenced to special sentencing) (Article 355(2) and (1) of the Criminal Act regarding criminal facts, Article 355(2) and (1) of the Criminal Act regarding the choice of punishment, Article 1 of the grounds for sentencing of imprisonment [the scope of recommendation] (Article 100 million won) (Article 355(2) and (1) of the Criminal Act (Article 355(1)

However, although the market price, which is the amount of damage caused by the instant crime, is not clear, the Defendant purchased the said machinery at approximately KRW 164.9 million (including value added tax) before around 1 year and 8 months prior to the instant crime; the amount of debt guaranteed by the Defendant at the time of the instant crime is 92.5 million and the Defendant India’s India’s aforementioned machinery.