Defendant

All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant (1) misunderstanding of facts, although Defendant (1) sold some pigs, the number of pigs raised on Defendant’s farm at the time was decreased by fratum, and the victim was also aware of this situation.

Therefore, the defendant did not have the intention of breach of trust.

(2) The sentence (one million won of fine) imposed by the lower court on the Defendant is too unreasonable.

B. The above sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. (1) In the event that the debtor transfers the movable property owned by him to the creditor by means of the possession and amendment to secure monetary liability against the assertion of mistake of facts, the so-called weak security transfer is established. Therefore, the debtor is obligated to keep the movable property so that the creditor (mortgagee) can achieve the purpose of security, and is in the position of a person who administers his/her business against the creditor.

Therefore, the crime of breach of trust is established where a debtor unfairly reduces the value of security, such as disposal of movable property transferred for security, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 89Do350, Jul. 25, 1989; 2010Do11293, Nov. 25, 2010). (2) According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the Defendant entered into a mixed feed sales contract for raising pigs with the victim on April 2012, and supplied combined feed to the victim on credit; (2) the Defendant approved the existing debt 15 million won arising from transactions with the victim on March 18, 2013; and (3) the Defendant provided the victim with a swine joint market from around March 25, 2013 to around March 21, 2013 as an object of transfer; and (4) the Defendant provided the victim with the said joint market as an object of transfer to the victim on March 27, 2013.