The defendant shall be innocent.

1. Around June 20, 2012, the Defendant purchased dump trucks under the name of Defendant’s wife D, and took out a loan of 197,90,000 funds to purchase vehicles from the victim’s two dump trucks on June 27, 2012 in order to cover the purchase price for the vehicle, and registered a mortgage creation on June 27, 2012 with a mortgagee’s two dump trucks, a corporation, 197,900,000 won in the value of the bonds, and thus, the duty to keep dump trucks until the repayment of the loan took place.

Nevertheless, on June 3, 2014, the Defendant borrowed KRW 20,000,000 from a person whose name is unknown and transferred a dump truck as security, thereby acquiring pecuniary benefits equivalent to KRW 20,000,000, and thereby incurring loss equivalent to KRW 197,90,000 from the victim company.

2. Determination:

A. In the event a mortgage is established on a motor vehicle, the exchange value of the motor vehicle is included in the mortgage, and even if the mortgagee sells the motor vehicle and the owner is different, barring any special circumstance, barring any special circumstance, it does not constitute a crime of breach of trust merely by the mortgagee selling the motor vehicle which is the object of the mortgage to another person, but where the debtor who provides and occupies the motor vehicle as a security conducts an act of unreasonably reducing the value of the security, it cannot be exempted from the liability for the crime of breach of trust (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do1165, Sept. 13, 2012).

However, in light of the following points, the defendant did not properly confirm the personal information and contact details of the counter party and did not devise a clear return measure.