A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

At permanent residence C, the Defendant operated the fruit beverage manufacturing business with the trade name “C”.

On March 4, 2014, the Defendant obtained a loan of KRW 50 million from a permanent branch of Korean bank, which is composed of 34 permanent residence, from a permanent branch of Korean bank, and entered into a mortgage contract with a collateral security interest of KRW 60 million on a permanent branch of Korean bank at the time of permanent residence as collateral (sacrifies and red ginseng extraction packing facilities).

Therefore, according to the above contract establishing a collateral security, the defendant has a duty to use, preserve, and manage the above machinery apparatus which is the object of security within the ordinary usage or business scope for the victim company with the duty of due care as a good manager so that the victim company can achieve the purpose of security, and not to reduce the value of the security unfairly by disposing of it.

Nevertheless, on July 2015, the Defendant violated the above duties and carried out the above machinery equipment to E, the Defendant’s creditor, thereby obtaining pecuniary benefits equivalent to the above machinery equipment rental fee, and suffered pecuniary damages equivalent to KRW 54,200,000 from the victim company.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police with regard to F;

1. A complaint, documents attached to the complaint and the complaint, and each appraisal report;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes for investigation reporting;

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

1. Determination as to the assertion of the Defendant and the defense counsel under the main sentence of Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act

1. The defendant and his defense counsel asserted that the crime of this case by the defendant does not constitute a crime of breach of trust since there was no risk of property damage or damage to the victim company.

2. The constructor of the relevant legal doctrine obtains the consent of the factory mortgagee.