All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

A. The lower court convicted the Defendant (misunderstanding of facts or misapprehending of the legal doctrine) of the following facts, or convicted the Defendant of the facts charged No. 3 by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

1) In relation to whether to carry on a stock farm, the Defendant entered into a partnership agreement with D only with regard to a stock farm business, but did not enter into a partnership agreement on a stock farm business for a natural burial ground.

Therefore, even without the written consent of D, the defendant has the right to sell a tree pool and the defendant's act of selling a tree farm is valid.

2) With regard to the duty of notification of provisional disposition, the provisional disposition order as stated in paragraph (3) of the facts charged by the Defendant with respect to the graveyard of this case (hereinafter “provisional disposition order of this case”) does not constitute “the circumstance that, if several buyers were notified, they would not have been in sales contract.” Thus, the Defendant did not have a duty to notify both parties of the provisional disposition order of this case.

Therefore, the failure of the defendant to notify the provisional disposition order of this case does not constitute deception.

3) In relation to intention or intention of unlawful acquisition, the Defendant had no intention or intention of unlawful acquisition in selling a tree pool to P.

4) In relation to the acquisition of the right to use the portion of the two, even if the defendant entered into a partnership agreement with D on the business of trees, this constitutes an anonymous association type under the Commercial Act and an act of selling trees in lots constitutes a business act of the union's ordinary business interest under the Commercial Act, and thus, the act of selling trees in lots is valid.

B. As to Article 2 of the facts charged, the prosecutor (misunderstanding of facts) found that the Defendant embezzled the amount equivalent to KRW 142,220,000 by arbitrarily receiving the sale price from both parties.

As there is room for seeing this suspicion of embezzlement, additional deliberation is required through the revision of indictment.