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

An applicant for compensation shall be dismissed.

c. facilitating action;

(2) On August 14, 2013, G, C, and the Defendant: (a) entered into a performance agreement stipulating that “The amount of debt against C to secure the Defendant’s claim shall be KRW 150 million with the maximum debt amount of KRW 200 million with respect to the instant building; (b) on September 2, 2013 in the name of G, the preservation of ownership on the instant building was completed; (c) the mortgagee set up a right to collateral security (hereinafter the instant right to collateral security) with the Defendant’s wife, the maximum debt amount of KRW 150 million with respect to the instant building; and (d) on December 1, 2014, K acquired the registration of ownership transfer on the instant building on January 14, 2014, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on the instant land by winning a bid of KRW 13 million with the maximum debt amount of KRW 13 million with respect to the instant building on December 19, 2014.

On January 24, 2017, the Defendant, at the home of the Defendant, Jung-gu, Incheon Metropolitan City M and Nho, transferred KRW 98.5 million from the above K to the account in the above L’s name in return for cancelling the right to collateral security, and embezzled KRW 49.25 million (98.5 million *1/2), which is the victim’s share, for the victim, voluntarily consumed the Defendant’s debt repayment on the same day.

2. According to the records on the panel, 4,9250,000 won, which the Defendant received in return for the cancellation of the instant right to collateral security, is recognized as factual relations as indicated in the facts charged, except that the Defendant is the victim’s share.

However, there is a lack of evidence in light of the following circumstances, which can be acknowledged by the record as a result of recognizing that the Defendant had a consignment relationship with the victim with regard to KRW 49.25 million among the KRW 98.5 million received in return for the cancellation of the instant mortgage.

The right to collateral security and the right to collateral security are different between the creditor and the debtor.

However, there is no evidence that the creditor and debtor of the instant right to collateral security succeeded to the status of the creditor and debtor of the previous right to collateral security.

B. The victim did not know that the establishment of the right to collateral security was established in this court.