The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the Defendant was aware that the transfer security established on the instant machinery was extinguished, and the Defendant had no intention to commit a breach of trust by disposing of it.

B. The punishment of the lower court (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant alleged that the aforementioned grounds for appeal were the same, but the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case by comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined, and rejected the Defendant’s aforementioned assertion on the grounds that it was detailed under the title of “decision on the Defendant and the defense counsel’s assertion.”

The judgment of the court below is compared with the records and pleadings, and the defendant did not have a marking of the transferred collateral at the time of the disposition of the machinery of this case.

In the lower court and the first instance court, the Defendant asserted that, while asserting that the Plaintiff did not have any security against the Defendant’s bank employees D, the Defendant’s label was detached, and that there was an wire conversation between the Defendant’s bank and the Defendant’s bank in accordance with the lower court and the first instance court’s argument, there was an wire conversation between the Defendant’s bank and the Defendant’s bank as to the security.

Even if the instant machine was attached, I shall bear criminal liability on the certificate of transfer collateral attached to the instant machine in the event of transfer or disposal without the consent of the bank.

“The phrase stated that it was merely an employee D, and that it was said that it was said to be above.

In addition, in light of the fact that it cannot be seen as a valid consent of the victim bank, as well as the fact that it is difficult to believe that the defendant's argument as a whole because there is no explanation or reason to reverse the argument as above, it is sufficient that the defendant at least did not have any negligence in breach of trust and criminal intent concerning the disposal of the transferred collateral.