The accused shall disclose the summary of the judgment of innocence.

1. In the facts charged, the victim C invested KRW 50 million in E business (hereinafter “instant business”) promoted by D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”), and set up a mortgage (hereinafter “mortgage”) with the maximum claim amount of KRW 600 million in F and 12 parcels as collateral for the said business, the victim C created a mortgage under the name of the victim because it is difficult to set up a mortgage under the victim’s name on grounds that it is difficult for C to substantially manage G in relation to the said business, and created a mortgage under the Defendant’s name with the victim’s assistance.

A. According to the nominal trust agreement between the Defendant and the victim on the instant right to collateral security in breach of trust, the Defendant had a duty to faithfully manage the instant right to collateral security on behalf of the victim.

Nevertheless, on August 30, 2013, the Defendant borrowed KRW 20 million from H without the consent of the victim. On September 4, 2013, the Defendant completed an additional registration of the partial transfer of the right to collateral security with the creditor as to the maximum amount of KRW 30 million out of the instant right to collateral security on September 4, 2013.

After all, the Defendant violated his duty and acquired pecuniary benefits equivalent to KRW 20 million, and the victim suffered a loss equivalent to KRW 30 million with the maximum amount of the above claim amount.

B. In the process of closing the above G office upon the obligees’ demand related to the above business and moving it to I at the time, the Defendant kept the agreement on the establishment of the right to collateral and the certificate of the right to registration related to the above right to collateral security.

While the Defendant was in custody of the agreement on the creation of a right to collateral security as above, he/she requested the return of each of the above documents from the injured party on October 22, 2014, but he/she embezzled by failing to return it without justifiable grounds.

2. Determination

A. According to the following facts and circumstances revealed by the evidence adopted by the court and examined by the court, the defendant is in breach of trust or embezzlement.