All the judgment below is reversed.

The Defendants are not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the Defendants is published.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles (1) Defendant A and B maintained the effect of the right of transfer security established by Defendant A and the victim Dongwon Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Dongwon”) in the amount of H farm on April 18, 2005, which was set up in the amount of H farm, even at the time of entering into a contract for transfer security with Defendant A and the victim Dongwon Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Dongwon”), and thus, the victim Dongwon could not acquire the right of transfer security, on the premise that the victim Dongwon acquired the right of transfer security, the crime of breach of trust is established against the Defendants on the premise that the crime of breach of trust is established on the premise that the victim Dongwon acquired the right of transfer security.

(2) Even if the victim's Dongwon effectively acquired the security interest, the security interest agreement concluded around December 2012 with the defendant C was concluded after the contract with the victim's Dongwon. Thus, the carway, a junior mortgagee, cannot acquire the exclusive security interest in relation to the victim's Dongwon, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the damage was caused to the victim's Dongwon due to the security interest agreement concluded between the defendant C and the carway, such as the loss of the security interest or the decrease in the value of the security.

(3) As the Defendant increased the amount of feed payments for the victim dongwon, in order to pay the amount of feed payments for the victim dongwon, the Defendants changed the feed supplier in accordance with the proposal of Z and entered into a security agreement for transfer to both the carway and H farm, so there is no intention to commit breach of trust against the Defendants.

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on unreasonable sentencing (Defendant A: one year and six months of imprisonment, Defendant B: one year of a suspended sentence, two years of a community service order, Defendant C: one year of a suspended sentence, two years of a suspended sentence, two years of a suspended sentence, and 160 hours of a community service order) is too unreasonable.

2. The judgment of the court below

A. Summary of the facts charged