A. Since the Defendant, with the consent of the obligee, mismisunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, sold the seized object of this case, and there were justifiable grounds for this, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (the fine of KRW 500,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Article 16 of the Criminal Act provides that a person’s act of misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles shall not be punishable only when there is a legitimate ground for misunderstanding that his act does not constitute a crime pursuant to the law. It does not mean a simple legal ground, but it means that a person who misleads the misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles does not punish him/her when he/she knows that his/her act constitutes a crime but, in general, it does not constitute a crime that

(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Do4592 Decided September 29, 2005). The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Do4592, Sept. 29, 200). In other words, (i) a creditor is unable to dispose of the property, and (ii) a notary public delegated the law enforcement officer D to the Gwangju District Court, and assigned the law enforcement officer D with the principal of KRW 10,000,00 on November 3, 2010 as the title of execution, seized one half of the smugglings and lines owned by the debtor, who is the law enforcement officer, and the defendant was taking part at the scene; (ii) at the time, the above enforcement officer clearly obtained the consent of the creditor, and (iii) at the time, the defendant was punished in cases where the possession of the seized property was transferred to the enforcement officer, and is disposed of or concealed, or damaged.