A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

On June 26, 2014, in order to obtain a loan of KRW 37 million from the Kimcheon-si Kimcheon-si, the Defendant entered into a credit transaction agreement and a security contract with the victim bank in Korea, and provided as security by transferring a printing machine owned by the Defendant to the victim by means of possession revision, and completed a credit transaction agreement and a security contract for transfer, and received a loan of KRW 37 million from the damaged party.

Therefore, the Defendant cannot dispose of the above printing machine, which is the object of security, with the intention of a good manager, until the Defendant is fully repaid to the obligee as the transferor secured bond holder, and the above printing machine is kept and managed with the duty of due care of a good manager

Nevertheless, on February 3, 2015, the defendant violated the above duties and disposed of the above printing machine to E in the company located in Kimcheon-si C, Kimcheon-si around February 3, 2015, and acquired 25 million won proprietary benefits and suffered damages equivalent to the above amount.

Summary of Evidence

1. Legal statement of witness E;

1. Statement made by the police with regard to F;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes on credit transaction agreements and transfer security contracts;

1. Article 355 (2) and (1) of the Criminal Act, and the choice of imprisonment with prison labor for the crime;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspended execution;

1. Determination as to the assertion by the Defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 62-2(1) of the Criminal Code of the Social Service Order

1. The summary of the argument is that the Defendant prepared a process deed of transferring the instant machinery to E as he or she did not transfer the instant machinery that was actually offered as a security to E, in preparation for a harsh sorbitical aggravation of health.

Even if the contents of the certificate are true, E will also transfer the ownership of the instant machine to E, but E will not take over the Defendant's obligation, the ownership of the instant machine is to E.