A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

except that the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Criminal facts

The Defendant operated a C farm in which pigs were raised in ethic City B.

Around March 22, 2011, the Defendant entered into a feed supply contract with the victim advanced company, and around April 5, 201, the Defendant offered all pigs (1,700 dubs) in the above farm owned by the Defendant as collateral for transfer in order to secure the payment of feed to be incurred in the future at the notary E office located on the second floor of the Dap, Suwon-gu, Suwon-si, Suwon-si, a notary public E-based, a second floor of the DF, a notary public

The Defendant was in a position to handle the affairs of the victim because the Defendant had a duty to keep pigs in the farm, which was provided as security for transfer, in accordance with an agreement, in order to achieve the purpose of security for the victim.

From December of the same year to July of the same year, the Defendant sold all pigs raised by the Defendant without producing or entering the new satisfys during the period from December of the same year to July of the same year.

As a result, the Defendant acquired financial benefits equivalent to KRW 81,152,239 of the secured debt out of the total purchase price of pigs offered as security for transfer, and sustained damages equivalent to the same amount as the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The police statement concerning F;

1. A complaint;

1. A feed supply contract;

1. Application of statutes on a copy of a notarial deed;

1. Relevant Article 355 (2) and (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense and Article 355 (2) of the Election of Imprisonment;

1. Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act on the stay of execution (see, e.g., Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da11448, Apr. 1, 2009) (see, 201; Supreme Court Decision 2009Da14488, Apr. 2, 201);