The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. According to the summary of the grounds for appeal, the defendant acquired the apology by escaping the victim's possession of the apology of this case.

Since it can be fully recognized, it is impossible to recognize the possession of the victim and thus, it is not possible to establish larceny.

The judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts and legal principles.

2. We examine ex officio the prosecutor’s appeal before determining the grounds for appeal.

A prosecutor maintained the existing facts charged in the first instance trial as the primary facts charged and added “Embezzlement” to the name of the crime as stated in the facts charged, and added “Article 355(1) of the Criminal Act” to “property damage” to the name of the crime as stated in the facts charged in the first instance. In the facts charged in the second instance, “Defendant B, who was awarded a contract by the victim B in the process of auction and paid in full the proceeds of the sale on August 17, 2016, and applied “an application for changes in the indictment as stated in Article 36 of the Criminal Act to the effect that: (a) the victim B added “a property damage” to the name of the crime as stated in the facts charged; and (b) the victim’s 300,000 won in total from the market value of private trees owned by the victim and the 60,074 square meters in total; and (c) the amendment of the indictment as stated in each Article of the Criminal Act to the effect that the amendment of the indictment was made.”

This Court permitted this and changed the subject of adjudication, so the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained.

However, despite the above reasons for reversal of authority, the prosecutor's assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles as to the primary facts charged by the prosecutor is still subject to the judgment of this court, so the prosecutor's assertion is below.

3. In determining the misunderstanding of the legal doctrine, theft under the Criminal Act means the removal of possession of the object owned by a person other than that possessed by another person against the will of the possessor, and the removal to his or her own possession or a third party.