The defendant is innocent.

On December 1, 2014, the Defendant of the Notarial Office agreed to pay 28,00,000 won per month from the victim capital Co., Ltd. for 36 months, one of the parties agreed to repay 989,930 won per month, and received a loan on December 2, 2014, for the purpose of securing the above loan obligation, the Defendant created a mortgage with the victim Co., Ltd. as to the above car at KRW 14 million for the purpose of securing the above loan obligation.

Accordingly, although the Defendant had a duty to manage the said car, which is the object of the victim company’s mortgage, as a good manager’s duty of care in line with the purpose of security, the Defendant breached the said duty and subsequently borrowed KRW 15 million from E to E on March 2015, and transferred the said car to E on the collateral, thereby obtaining property gains equivalent to KRW 15 million, and suffered property damages equivalent to KRW 28 million from the victim company.

Non-crimes

1. Whether the person in charge of another person's business is the nominal owner of the loan contract of this case and the nominal owner of the mortgage contract of this case are not the defendant but the defendant's wife C or the vehicle of this case can be recognized that the defendant purchased the vehicle of this case under C for the purpose of using it from the beginning. Thus, the person who has a duty to manage the vehicle of this case under the duty

2. Whether the act of breach of trust is committed;

A. In the event a mortgage is established on an automobile, the exchange value of the automobile is included in the mortgage, and even if the mortgagee sells an automobile and the owner is different, the mortgage does not affect the mortgage. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the mere sale of an automobile which is the object of the mortgage to another person does not constitute the crime of breach of trust.