A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Punishment of the crime

From August 11, 2015, the Defendant is in office as one director of C Co., Ltd., a printed circuit printing company from August 11, 2015, and operates the above company.

On April 27, 2010, the above company obtained a loan of 189 million won from the Industrial Bank of Korea located in Ansan-si, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, which was 348,00,000 won from the victim's Industrial Bank of Korea as a loan for small and medium enterprise funds, and entered into a security agreement with the above company on the transfer of one unit (the market price is equivalent to 180,9420,000,000 won; hereinafter referred to as the "the instant machinery") automatically folding up the reinforcement market owned by the above company as collateral, including the total amount of 227,00,000 won.

Although the Defendant had the duty to keep the object of transfer-backed security as the duty of a good manager for the victim until the amount of loan is refunded in accordance with the above transfer-backed security contract, the Defendant sold the equipment and machinery of the company including the above machinery to 530,000,000,000 won around June 30, 2016, and delivered it to KS, thereby obtaining the pecuniary benefits equivalent to 50,300,000 won in the balance of the loan and causing property damage equivalent to the same amount to the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of D and E;

1. Investigative reports (to hear statements from persons in charge of corporate banks);

1. Determination on a credit transaction agreement, transaction details, transfer security agreement, business trip name, facility transaction agreement, report on the actual condition of transfer security, loan-related review opinion, inquiry statement about the loan ledger, the defendant, and his/her defense counsel's assertion

1. It was true that the claim for a dispute settlement agreement Co., Ltd. received a loan from the injured party on April 2010, and concluded a comprehensive collateral security agreement by providing the instant machine as the object of the collateral transfer. However, the Defendant was unaware of the conclusion of a comprehensive collateral security agreement, and the Defendant was aware of the termination of the transfer security agreement while obtaining a substitute loan around April 2016. Therefore, there was no intention in breach of trust by the Defendant.

2. The judgment is based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court.