The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

According to the F’s consistent statement of the gist of the grounds for appeal (the factual errors and misapprehension of the legal principles), the fact that the Defendant gave F F a written waiver of the instant tank lorri vehicle while having it transferred to F the instant tank lorri vehicle. This is premised on the situation in which the Defendant’s foregoing tank lorri vehicle is distributed in large vehicles, making it impossible to grasp the location of the vehicle.

Therefore, since the defendant was aware of the fact that it could interfere with the exercise of the victim's right to delay, the judgment of the court below that judged otherwise is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles and misconception of facts, even if the charge of this case is found guilty.

Judgment

The lower court’s judgment does not constitute a crime of breach of trust in cases where a mortgage is established on an automobile, since an automobile exchange value is included in the mortgage, and even if the mortgager sells an automobile and its owner is different, barring any special circumstance, barring any special circumstance, the mortgager merely sells an automobile which is the object of the mortgage to another person (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Do3651, Aug. 21, 2008): Provided, That in cases where a debtor who provides and possesses an automobile as a security conducts an act of unreasonably reducing its collateral value, he cannot be exempted from the crime of breach of trust in cases where the debtor’s act would lose the collateral value even though he/she is aware that it would be impossible to exercise the right to estimate the automobile of the victim who is the mortgagee at least dolusor, and thus, the crime of breach of trust is established. In other words, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, i.e., where the Defendant himself/herself is unable to conceal it as an exclusive business asset of the Defendant’s business to maintain his/her livelihood.