The defendant shall disclose the summary of the judgment of innocence against the defendant.

1. On May 24, 201, the Defendant borrowed KRW 100 million from the victim E from the agricultural cooperatives located near “D” located in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on May 24, 201, and returned KRW 30 million on the following day to borrow KRW 70 million.

On May 24, 2011, the Defendant lent KRW 70 million to F, and received a loan certificate, automobile transfer certificate (benz, temporary operation permit certificate G), temporary operation permit, import declaration certificate, vehicle abandonment certificate, certificate of seal impression, etc. from F as security, and on May 31, 2012, the Defendant sent the above documents to the victim, and the Defendant decided to keep the said benz motor vehicle for the victim.

On the other hand, F paid the Defendant the sum of KRW 20 million on June 4, 2012, KRW 30 million on August 2, 2012, KRW 50 million, and KRW 20 million on the remainder of the borrowed amount.

Since the above vehicle provided as security was kept in custody for the victim, there was a duty of care to avoid the act of losing the value of security such as disposing of the above vehicle without the consent of the victim.

Nevertheless, on July 2012, the Defendant delivered the said vehicle to F without the consent of the victim in front of the Defendant’s house located in Maman-si H in the Seocho-si, Seocho-si, 2012, and had F gain pecuniary advantage equivalent to KRW 20 million in the balance of the borrowed money to F, and had the victim inflict a loss equivalent to the same amount.

2. It is difficult to deem that the Defendant had a duty to keep the instant vehicle for the victim in light of the circumstance in which the Defendant was handed over the instant vehicle from F from F, and the developments leading up to the delivery of the instant vehicle to F, and it is difficult to deem that the Defendant had an intention to commit an intentional breach of trust or to obtain illegal gains.

3. The intention of breach of trust is that the person who deals with another's business causes property damage to the principal, and that person's or a third party's property interest.