The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment with prison labor for four months) of the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. The facts charged and the judgment of the court below

A. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant is a person who engages in fiber processing business with the trade name of “C” (the name of the representative is the Defendant’s D) in G in Seongbuk-gun, Seongbuk-gun, and the trade name of “F” (the representative of the Defendant) in both weeks.

On December 5, 2016, the Defendant: (a) borrowed 50 million won from “F” office located in Yangju-si, Yangju-si, from “F” office; (b) agreed to offer 20 million won per market price as security.

In accordance with the above agreement, the Defendant had a duty to keep the two organs for the victim.

Nevertheless, on May 19, 2018, the Defendant, in violation of this provision, sold two parts of the above flag to “I” by selling them to “I”, thereby obtaining pecuniary benefits equivalent to KRW 50 million, and suffered economic damages equivalent to the same amount from the victim.

B. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged by compiling the evidence as indicated in its judgment.

3. Judgment ex officio on the grounds of appeal

A. Even if an obligor, in order to secure a pecuniary obligation, provided the movable property owned by him/her as a security for transfer to a creditor, imposes an obligation on the mortgagee, who is the creditor, to maintain and preserve the value of the security, or to refrain from doing any act impeding the exercise of the security right by either disposing of the security or destroying or damaging the security, it cannot be deemed that the obligor, on the contrary, entrusts the obligee with the affairs on the basis of a fiduciary relationship with the creditor, beyond an ordinary contractual relationship.

Therefore, the debtor cannot be deemed to fall under the "person who administers another's business", which is the subject of the crime of breach of trust, and the security value has been reduced by disposing of the security to a third party.