The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual error) is clear that each of the instant vehicles was provided as security, and it cannot be deemed that the victim Shin Ba Capital Co., Ltd. transferred the certificate of import declaration and the key of the vehicle to the Defendant D Co., Ltd., and thus, the facts charged of breach of trust should be deemed as proved.

2. According to the records, the first instance court's decision that the defendant's disposal of each of the of the of the of the of the of the instant vehicles was not guilty on the basis of the judgment that the defendant's disposal of the instant vehicles could not be said to be an act of unfairly reducing the value of collateral by turning an import declaration certificate and the automobile heat on his own to D Co., Ltd. on the grounds as stated in its reasoning (see Supreme Court Decision 89Do350, Jul. 25, 1989). Unlike others, since there is no evidence to prove that the defendant offered each of the instant vehicles to the victim company as collateral and disposed of it as it is, the certificate of import declaration certificate and the automobile heat chain, unlike as agreed upon by the defendant, have been disposed of, are without merit.

3. Therefore, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.