beta
Text
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.
However, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
The defendant is the representative of C corporation.
On April 24, 2015, the Defendant purchased the said car in the office of the said company located in Mapo-gu Seoul, Mapo-gu, Seoul, and the second floor in the name of the said company, and received a loan of KRW 25,700,000 from the victim KB Capital Co., Ltd. and appropriated it to the purchase price for the said car, and around the 27th day of the said month, the Defendant registered the establishment of a collective security right with the mortgagee's "KB Capital," "25,700,000 won for the said car as security," and the Defendant had a duty to keep the said car in accordance with the purpose of security until the loan is repaid.
Nevertheless, on May 20, 2015, the Defendant violated the above duty and was given a loan of KRW 10,000,000 from the lending company of Esyman money around May 20, 2015, thereby making it impossible for the Defendant to grasp the location of the said car by providing the said car as security and transferring its possession.
As a result, the Defendant acquired property benefits of KRW 10,000,000 from the above Aussus and suffered damages equivalent to KRW 25,700,000 from the victim.
Summary of Evidence
1. Legal statement of witness F;
1. A complaint, an application for a new loan, an application for a corporate registry, a business registration certificate, etc. (C), an automobile registration ledger, and a detailed statement of transactions (KB Capital);
1. A written statement of the defendant (where an obligor who provides and occupies a motor vehicle as security unfairly reduces the value of the motor vehicle, he/she may not be exempted from the liability for the crime of breach of trust (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do11665, Sept. 13, 2012). The location of the victim company was unable to grasp by transferring the possession of the motor vehicle.
Even if the location of the vehicle was identified, there was a situation in which the victim company is unable to exercise the security right to the vehicle due to the failure to recover the vehicle.
This is unfair for the debtor who provides and occupies a motor vehicle as security.