Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 500,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

A. The Defendant was aware of the misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles that the Oralba in this case was abandoned, and did not recognize that the Oralba in this case was another person’s property.

Therefore, the defendant did not have the intention to commit the crime of embezzlement of stolen property.

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

2. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant.

Where concurrent crimes prescribed by the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act before a judgment of the first instance was rendered after the judgment of the appellate court was rendered and a final and conclusive judgment to sentence punishment was rendered pursuant to Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act, the appellate court shall ex officio reverse the judgment of the first instance and

(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Do15253 Decided January 13, 201, and Supreme Court Decision 2012Do9295 Decided September 27, 2012, etc.). According to the records, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for a period of two years at the Seoul Central District Court on April 5, 2013, for a crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Crime Assault, etc.). The above judgment can be recognized as having been finally affirmed by the Supreme Court’s dismissal judgment on December 26, 2013. Thus, the crime for which the said judgment became final and conclusive are concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal

Therefore, the judgment of the court below can no longer be maintained in this respect, since the punishment is to be determined in consideration of equity in the case of concurrent judgment pursuant to Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act by reversal ex officio.

3. In conclusion, the judgment of the court below is reversed ex officio pursuant to Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the grounds for appeal by the defendant, and the following decision is rendered after pleading.

Criminal facts

The summary of the criminal facts and evidence of the defendant recognized by the court is identical to the corresponding column of the judgment of the court below, and thus, they are quoted in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

The application of legislation;