beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. According to the summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of the facts), the victim's statement in the original trial and the statement of the certificate of fairness in the trial by the victim, etc., the victim had a claim of 65 million won in total against the defendant, and the victim prepared a certificate of fairness in the contract for monetary consumption and lending of collateral to the effect that he/she provides the defendant as collateral for transfer of the facilities of a business establishment operated by the defendant with legitimate delegation by the defendant, but the defendant arbitrarily transferred it to the building owner
Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case is erroneous.
2. Determination
A. The summary of the facts charged is the actual operator of the E Council member and E-department management shop in Jeonju-si D, 2 and 3 Jeonju-si.
On October 29, 2013, the Defendant: (a) as security for KRW 65 million borrowed from C for construction work price, etc. to E members; and (b) as security for the transfer of the facilities listed in the attached list of transfer security in the lower judgment, such as astronomical air conditioners, washing machines, and air conditioners installed at the place; and (c) as security for the transfer of the facilities to the victim; and (d) as a person registered in the name of E members, the Defendant issued the certification and power of attorney for the registration of E members
Accordingly, on the same day, a notary public located in G as the victim had already agreed at the law firm H, and the debtor F, to pay KRW 65 million until November 10, 2013, and prepared a certificate of the fairness of the transfer-backed monetary consumption and loan contract with the content that the above facility is to be transferred to the victim as collateral. As such, the defendant had the duty to faithfully keep the above facility and maintain its collateral value until the obligation relationship with the victim is determined.
Nevertheless, the Defendant violated such duties, and around November 201, 2013, up to five million won to the building owner I of the foregoing facility.