A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

A. Defendant - the misunderstanding of the facts about the lower court’s judgment (property damage) - the Defendant only made telephone conversations with Y, and did not specifically instruct the removal of control salary.

Furthermore, in light of the fact that H is an employee employed by H, and that “O river by-products (hingtos) storages” as stated in the facts constituting the crime at the time of the instant case were operated by H, G, and their employees, the Defendant did not have the authority to direct Y to remove the control rods, and therefore, Y removed the control rods upon the Defendant’s instruction.

Therefore, it is not possible to see that the act of aiding and abetting the defendant is not recognized.

Even if it does not do so, it is illegal to install a control seal at the site of this case at the Chungcheong City, because it is anticipated that the defendant's work will be suspended due to the performance of official duties, and the removal of it constitutes a legitimate defense or legitimate act.

B. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, such as the prosecutor - the mistake of facts about the judgment of the second instance (Invalidity of indication in the line of duty) - G’s statement, the Defendant received, even after the notice of the decision of provisional disposition of this case, the sales proceeds from dredging, which H and G et al. taken out in violation of the aforementioned decision of provisional disposition, was distributed, and part of the sales proceeds

Since it is recognized that there is a trial seal, the defendant has impaired the utility of the decision of the provisional disposition of this case by bringing out the dredging soil of this case without permission in collusion with H, G, etc.

full recognition may be accepted.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged on the ground that it is difficult to recognize the conspiracy relationship between H and the Defendant is erroneous by misapprehending the facts and affecting the conclusion

2. Judgment on the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts

A. The summary of this part of the facts charged is the representative director of the limited partnership E in X (hereinafter “E”).

E. The E.