The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

1. The summary of the facts charged was as follows: (a) from July 2000 to April 2007, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for one year and four months at the Gwangju District Court for the crime of occupational embezzlement on July 12, 2012, and the sentence became final and conclusive on September 20, 2012.

In the process of receiving a loan from the Agricultural Bank of Korea, the victim company was subscribed to the Agricultural Bank of Korea, and it cannot subscribe to the Agricultural Bank of Korea under the name of the corporation, and thus, the amount of the contract amount of 30 million won in the name of the defendant on April 9, 2005, the victim company paid 30 million won in lump sum of the funds of the victim company.

Therefore, even though the defendant had a duty to faithfully manage and preserve the above Agricultural Cooperative life mutual aid for the victim company, he/she in violation of his/her duty and received 22 million won from the Nonghyup Franchising Branch located in the Nam-gu Namdong-gu Busan on May 18, 2010, by establishing a pledge on the above Agricultural Cooperative life mutual aid for the purpose of security and thereby obtaining pecuniary benefits equivalent to the value of the security.

Accordingly, the defendant committed a breach of trust against the victim company.

2. The judgment of the crime of breach of trust is established when a person administering another’s business obtains pecuniary advantage or let a third party obtain it through an act in violation of one’s duty, thereby causing damage to the principal. Here, “a person administering another’s business”, who is the subject, refers to a person executing another’s business on the basis of a fiduciary relationship, beyond a mere obligation under a fiduciary relationship between the two parties, who acts as a proxy for another’s business concerning the management of property or cooperates in preserving another’s property, and “act in violation of one’s duty” refers to a specific situation, such as the content