All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) As of the first trial date of the trial of the first instance, the Defendant and his defense counsel alleged that there was an error of mistake in the determination of the lower court as to the larceny portion among the facts charged in the instant case on February 2, 2014. However, it cannot be viewed as a legitimate ground for appeal since it was an assertion after the lapse of the period for filing the appeal, and there is no ground for ex officio examination thereof.

Of the facts charged in the instant case, the actual owner of the Embezzlement A6 G car in 2013, which was the damaged part of the embezzlement, was not the victim E but the victim E, and the Defendant was requested from the victim to return the said car once, but the victim was in flight and was not returned to him/her at the F’s request. As such, the Defendant did not have the intent of embezzlement.

However, the lower court recognized the Defendant as embezzlement, so it erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The sentence of the lower court that is unfair in sentencing (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. On February 13, 2014, the Defendant, by mistakeing the facts, steals office fixtures, etc. from the victim E office on February 13, 2014; and on February 23, 2014, the Defendant, along with K, resided.

Although I studio 305 recognized the fact that the real estate transaction contract was stolen, the court below acquitted each of the facts charged, so the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. As to embezzlement, the lower court determined that the Defendant rejected the Defendant, even though the victim E returned a passenger car to the Defendant on February 22, 2014.

In light of the consistent statement, and the J's statement also conforms to it, the defendant embezzled the passenger car as stated by the defendant.