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.

The Defendant, as a traditional temple in Yongcheon-si, the Korean Traditional Temple C, managed the said temple for about 20 years, and was permitted to use the land of Yongcheon-si, the market price of approximately KRW 27 million owned by E as a site for the said temple, and he embezzled the victim’s property by selling approximately KRW 27 million in price to H, who was a landscaper, at around September 2, 2009, when he purchased the said land from E and the said land from E during the period from September 2, 2009 to December 2, 200, while he was in charge of the said land for the victim from the said land. From around 09:00 on October 11, 2016, the Defendant embezzled the victim’s property by selling KRW 27 million in price to H, a landscaper.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of the witness G, I, J, and K;

1. A copy of a report on investigation (a copy of a real estate transaction contract, etc.), such as a real estate transaction contract, etc., investigation report (a copy of a bankbook stating deposit details of a contract for sales of native trees), and a bankbook under the name

1. Determination as to the assertion by the father, the defendant, and the defense counsel as a result of the cadastral survey, on the certified copy of the real estate register, the land use plan including the parts, photographs after the damage of trees, the search result of cultural properties

1. The Defendant and the defense counsel asserted: (1) the land of the victim is the land of Yongcheon-si F (hereinafter “instant land”) where the instant native trees were planted.

Even if the instant native trees were donated from the owner of the said land at least 300 years prior to the use thereof, or were planted and managed as landscape trees in D, a non-corporate body, a non-corporate body, a non-corporate body that received a donation from the owner of the said land, and thus, D’s ownership as trees planted by the title. (2) Since D or the Defendant was not entrusted with the management of the said native trees from the owner of the land, the Defendant is not in a custodian’s position. (3) Since the Defendant was aware that the instant native trees were owned by D and sold, the Defendant did not have any intent to obtain unlawful acquisition or embezzlement, the Defendant did not have any criminal intent to commit the crime of embezzlement.

c) argument.