The judgment below

The guilty part shall be reversed.

The sentence against the accused shall be three million won.

Defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts as to the violation of trust or misunderstanding of legal principles as to Defendant 1’s violation of trust, or the Defendant, around April 1, 2014, is the ginseng dry field of 4,000 square meters and 4,000 square meters from the victim and the Gangseo-gu, Yangwon-gun, Seoul

(C) The term “the ginseng of this case” in total of ginseng and its cultivation rights listed in the ginseng and its cultivation rights (hereinafter referred to as “ginseng”).

(2) The lower court’s sentence is unreasonable on the ground that there was no fact of concluding a transfer security contract for security, and thus, cannot be the subject of breach of trust.

B. A prosecutor 1) Since the victim of mistake of facts, in consultation with the Defendant, extended a manager building with a purpose and function entirely separate from the existing low temperature warehouse, it cannot be said that the extended manager building conforms to the existing low temperature warehouse. Furthermore, the instant manager building has been extended and managed by the victim at his own expense, and thus, it should be deemed as the property owned by the victim. 2) The lower court’s sentence is unreasonable.

2. Determination on the assertion by the defendant and the prosecutor

A. 1) The lower court acknowledged the fact that the Defendant provided the instant ginseng as a security for transfer on the ground of the victim’s statement, including the fact that the ginseng cultivation certificate, the ginseng cultivation report was prepared in the name of the victim, and the Defendant’s vindication related to the preparation process was difficult to obtain, and the Defendant also made a statement to the effect that the victim was refused to transfer the instant ginseng to the victim, and that the Defendant offered the instant ginseng as a security for transfer on the basis of the victim’s statement. (2) However, in light of the following circumstances, the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the appellate court, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to acknowledge that the Defendant concluded a contract to establish a security for transfer on the instant ginseng orally with the victim on April 1, 2014.