The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds of appeal is that the Defendant: (a) replaced part of the machinery which is the object of the transfer for security from around 2007 to around 2010 on the ground of machinery deterioration, etc.; (b) during the period from around September 21, 201, where E, an employee of the Industrial Bank of Korea (hereinafter “victim bank”) used a substitute loan without properly verifying it at the time of lending for substitute; (c) however, E stated that it was confirmed whether the 16 type of machinery on the list of the object of transfer for security while lending for substitute loan was in existence; (d) the photographs of the machinery which is the object of transfer for security and the machinery at the time of the initial establishment of the object of transfer for security by the victim bank are different from the photographs of the machinery at the time of the initial establishment of the object of transfer for security held by the victim bank; and (e) there was no reason to prove the object of transfer for substitute loan from around September 21, 2011 to around October 12, 2010.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant in the instant charges is a person running D Co., Ltd. with the second floor of the Kucheon-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City Co., Ltd.

On September 21, 201, the Defendant borrowed KRW 119,000,000 for the purpose of replacing existing loans at the Kancheon-gu Industrial Bank of Korea located in Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu, Busan. In addition, the Defendant provided the above victim with the facilities listed in the attached list, such as CHIP MUTER 3,00,00 for the purpose of securing the obligation.

When the Defendant provided his own property as a security for transfer, the Defendant had a duty to preserve the property transferred for transfer with the fiduciary duty of due care until the obligation is repaid, but the Defendant has from September 21, 201.