The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., a fine of four million won) imposed by the lower court is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. The facts charged and the judgment of the court below

A. The summary of the facts charged is a person who operated C in Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City B.

On August 22, 2013, the Defendant agreed to provide six hundred million won of the machinery owned by the Defendant to the Victim F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “victim Co., Ltd.”) in the office of Law Firm E by a notary public of Nam-gu, Incheon, with six hundred million won of the money owned by the Defendant as a means of transfer by means of possession and alteration of the Victim Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “victim Co., Ltd.”) and completed these authentic deeds, which led to the occurrence of the duty to keep the machinery

On July 15, 2016, the Defendant, in violation of the foregoing duties, sold to G the ECO (hereinafter “instant machinery”), the market value of which is equivalent to KRW 40 million among the machinery provided as security for transfer on July 15, 2016, thereby obtaining economic benefits equivalent to the same amount and causing damage equivalent to the same amount to the victim company.

B. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged by compiling the evidence as indicated in its judgment.

3. Judgment ex officio on the grounds of appeal

A. In order to secure a pecuniary obligation, even if a debtor provided the movable property owned by him/her as a security for transfer to a creditor, was liable to maintain and preserve the value of the security to the mortgagee, who is the creditor, by either disposing of the security in another place, or by destroying or damaging the security, etc., it cannot be deemed that the debtor, on the basis of a fiduciary relationship with the creditor, takes charge of the creditor’s affairs based on a fiduciary relationship with the creditor, beyond an ordinary contractual relationship.

Therefore, the debtor cannot be deemed to fall under the "person who administers another's business" who is the subject of the crime of breach of trust, and the value of the security by disposing of the security to a third party.