The Defendants’ appeal is dismissed.

The costs of the lawsuit by the court below shall be jointly borne by the defendants.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the judgment of the court below is a case where the mistake of facts has affected the conclusion of the judgment.

In other words, the crime of breach of trust is not guilty, but because the obligation of the defendants to open the name of the shares as collateral for the transfer proceeds is not incidental to that of others, and the defendants did not intend to commit the crime of breach of trust, and as shown in the result of civil trial, there is no substantial damage because the security right of the victim company was lost.

It is not guilty of interference with duties due to no intention.

In addition, the punishment prescribed by the court of the original trial (two years of suspended execution for each of 8 months' imprisonment, 80 hours of community service) is too unreasonable.

2. As to the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendants asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal, and the lower court presented its judgment.

In light of the evidence duly adopted and examined, the court below's finding the defendant guilty of the charge of breach of trust and obstruction of business as stated in its holding is just and acceptable.

We cannot accept the allegation that there is a mistake of facts affecting the judgment of the court below.

One of the grounds for appeal by the defense counsel is, in principle, the obligation to perform in accordance with the terms and conditions of the agreement constitutes “one’s own business,” barring any special circumstance, and thus, the obligor disposed of the real estate to a third party, in a case where the obligor assumes obligations to the obligee due to consumption, lending, etc. and transfers the ownership of the real estate in the future to secure this.

Even if a crime of breach of trust is not established under the Criminal Act, Supreme Court Decision 2014Do3363 Decided August 21, 2014 should also be applied to this case.

However, a person who is obligated to cooperate in preserving the property of the other party to the transaction intentionally performs his/her duties.