The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Inasmuch as the instant vehicle was not aware of the fact that it was a misunderstanding vehicle, there was no intention in breach of trust.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that recognized the defendant's intention with a vague judgment that the defendant could have known that the vehicle in this case was a seated vehicle is erroneous in the misconception of facts.

B. In misunderstanding of the legal principles, the instant vehicle was subject to the mortgage of KRW 122,200,000,000 as the actual debt amount to our Capital, and the auction was scheduled at the time of the transfer of the instant name with the overdue payment.

Therefore, the Defendant disposed of the instant vehicle and transferred the name to G Co., Ltd.

Even if the victim is unable to exercise the right of ownership, so it was caused by the defendant's act.

subsection (b) of this section.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which convicted the victim on the ground that the victim suffered damages of KRW 90 million due to the defendant's breach of trust is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

(c)

The punishment of the lower court (six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence of the lower court, such as D, I, and H’s statement in the lower court as to the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant entered into a contract to transfer the instant vehicle to G Co., Ltd. with the knowledge that the instant vehicle was a seat-in vehicle, and recognized the fact that the ownership transfer registration was completed. Therefore, the allegation of mistake is groundless

B. The judgment of the misapprehension of the legal doctrine on the instant land’s assertion was established with a mortgage exceeding the value of the vehicle under the name of our Capital, and even if there was no transfer by the Defendant, even if the victim was placed in the place where he would be deprived of the actual ownership by the auction procedure, so long as the Defendant voluntarily disposed of the vehicle that he was left, the crime of breach of trust is established as a result of the occurrence of damage equivalent to the value of the vehicle, and the victim by auction thereafter exercises the substantial ownership