The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In a case where the Defendant, as stated in the facts charged, made a registration of the transfer of ownership on the loan loan No. 702 by a non-real estate trust company (hereinafter “K non-trust”), not the injured party, as indicated in the facts charged, the crime of breach of trust is not established in light of the legal doctrine, and there is no intention of breach of trust and no acquisition of pecuniary profit.

B. The sentence of the lower court (one year of imprisonment) against an unfair defendant in sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination on the misapprehension of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. The summary of the facts charged (main facts charged) at the office at the scene of the construction of Ulsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Dang Construction Project on November 4, 2014, the Defendant concluded a sales contract with the victim for the above C lending 702 in the process of construction, and the Defendant paid on behalf of the Defendant the construction cost of KRW 200 million to E, who is the construction business operator of the above C lending, under the pretext of the sale price.

Therefore, upon the completion of the above lending, the duty of the defendant to implement the registration procedure for the transfer of ownership to the victim C lending 702.

However, on July 15, 2015, the Defendant breached the above duty and entered into a management trust agreement with the K non-real estate trust company, and transferred the ownership of subparagraph 702 to the above trust company.

Accordingly, the defendant acquired property benefits equivalent to KRW 2550 million in the above loan market, and suffered damages equivalent to the same amount to the victim.

B. The lower court determined that the Defendant’s assertion disputing the aforementioned grounds for appeal may be rejected on the premise that the facts recorded in the facts charged are acknowledged based on evidence, and that the Defendant, who deals with another’s business, intentionally acquired pecuniary benefits in breach of trust.

Based on the judgment, the defendant was pronounced guilty.

(c)

1) The detailed details of the instant case are recorded.