All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant (1) In regard to the transfer of movable property, Defendant (1) reserves ownership to the person who created the transfer of security in an internal relationship with the party who created the transfer of security. As such, Defendant is not in the position of a person who administers another’s business in relation to the Industrial Bank of Korea, and the act of disposing of the instant machinery

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles in finding guilty of the facts charged of this case.

(2) Even if the Defendant’s conviction is acknowledged, the lower court’s imprisonment (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the Defendant’s assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the Defendant considered the “Supreme Court en banc Decision 2014Do3363 Decided August 21, 2014” and (1) held an obligor’s ownership in an internal relationship with respect to movable property transfer by possession amendment; (2) cannot be deemed that there is a fiduciary relationship between the obligee, the Industrial Bank of Korea, and the Defendant, the obligor, and even if the fiduciary relationship is acknowledged, the obligation of the Defendant to preserve and manage the instant machinery may not be a “comfort” business of the victim; (3) the ultimate purpose of the collateral transfer contract between the parties is to pay back the obligation; (4) it is an excessive punishment to punish a case that is merely a non-performance of civil obligation as a crime of breach of trust; and (5) it is a precedent that does not constitute a crime of breach of trust in double selling movable property. In light of such precedents and equity.