The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. 1) As to the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles regarding the instant crime, the Defendant merely refused by the employees sent by the victim C with respect to the instant crime of fraud, which is the standard tree as stated in paragraph (1) of the crime committed in the judgment of the court below (hereinafter “the instant standard tree”) by refusing to extract the standard tree planted in the forest located in the area located in Gangwon-do Acheon-gun.

(2) The Defendant, as indicated in paragraph (2) of the criminal facts in the judgment below, extracted the entire trees indicated in paragraph (2) of the same Article (hereinafter referred to as “the entire trees of this case”), and at the time there was no intention or ability to supply the victims with the standard trees at the time. Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of fraud of this case, by misunderstanding the facts or misapprehending the legal principles, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine or by misapprehending the legal doctrine that found the Defendant guilty of the larceny of this case.

B. As to the assertion of unfair sentencing, the sentence imposed by the court below (in the case of fraud and larceny, 6 months of imprisonment with prison labor, and 2 million won of fine on the judgment of the court below) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the record as to the assertion of mistake of facts in the crime of fraud of this case, U.S., which arranged a sales contract between the defendant and the victim C, was requested from the defendant to excavate the standard trees to the victim C around November 2014, which was about three months after the payment period under the above sales contract, and sent the work seal to extract the standard trees to the victim C, and the work seal was sent at the request of the defendant, and the work seal was sent. However, it is recognized that there was a lot of land designated by the defendant and the fact that the defendant did not extract the standard trees.