1. The judgment below is reversed.

2. The defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for two years;

3.Provided, That the period of three years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Regarding the theft of forest products by mistake of fact, the Defendant obtained prior consent to the extraction from the damaged party, the owner of 4gs of pine trees as stated in paragraph (1) of the judgment of the court below.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court as to the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant, without prior consent of the victim, can be recognized that the Defendant attempted to cut down 4 glue trees and attempted to do so.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

① The forest land within the Dong-dong, where 4 glus were planted, appears to be owned by D clans (I: the representative of the clans) (the evidence of the lower court 2014 high 75 cases). ② The Defendant paid KRW 4.8 million to H, the representative of the clans in cash.

Then, the lower court stated that: (a) 2.8 million won of pine trees purchase price was directly paid in cash to H; (b) 2.8 million won was received from the lower court; and (c) 2.0 million won was remitted to the “T” to the “T; and (d) 2. million won was remitted to the “T” and delivered to H.

(110 pages of the trial record). However, in light of the fact that H did not sell pine trees to the police, the prosecution, and the court below, and stated that there was no fact of receiving the purchase amount (the evidence records of the 2014 high 75 case, page 76, page 105, page 92 of the trial record), and the fact that H stated that there was no permit to extract pine trees at the police and the court below (the evidence records of the 2015 high 40 case, page 83 of the trial record, page 99 of the trial record of the court below), and that H stated that there was no evidence such as receipt or remittance about the fact that the Defendant purchased pine trees or paid the purchase amount (the evidence of the 2015 high 75 case, page 92 of the trial record).