The remainder of the compensation order, excluding the compensation order, shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment of one year and six months.

A. Defendant C (De facto M) was unaware of the fact that the 1,944m2 (hereinafter “instant land”) was a title trust from a clan in Sinsi-si. As such, Defendant C did not have the intention of embezzlement to Defendant C.

B. The Defendants (unfairly unfair) sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendants (one and half years of imprisonment with prison labor; eight months of imprisonment with prison labor; and eight months of imprisonment with prison labor; and eight months of imprisonment with prison labor) are too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court determined the Defendants’ assertion of mistake of facts as to the summary of the evidence. In so doing, the lower court determined as to the Defendants’ assertion on the part of the summary of the evidence, i.e., the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, i.e., (i) Defendant C sold the instant land on or around September 24, 2009; (ii) consulted with other co-defendants about the settlement of the purchase price at around March 4, 2012 without undergoing settlement at that time; and (iii) the Defendants consulted about the distribution of the purchase price on the premise that the instant land was title trust from a clan around March 4, 2012; and (iv) even if Defendant C expressed his intent to return the purchase price to a clan where the instant land was revealed after the crime, the intent of embezzlement may be recognized.

Therefore, Defendant C’s above assertion is without merit.

B. As to the Defendants’ assertion of unfair sentencing, the sales price of the real estate embezzled by Defendant A is about KRW 711 million, the sales price of the real estate embezzled by Defendant B and C is about KRW 311 million, and the sales price of the real estate embezzled by Defendant B and C is up to KRW 311 million, respectively, and the fact that Defendant A led to the instant crime in the position of the president of the clan is disadvantageous to the Defendants.

However, Defendant A and B have led to the confession and reflection of the instant crime, and the victim's side and back to the trial.