The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

except that the ruling shall be made for one year from the date of the final judgment.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The judgment of the court below that found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case even though the defendant did not have an intention to steal a tree round, is erroneous in misconception of facts.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (six months of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution, etc.) is excessively unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (1) The Defendant responded to the purport that, at the time of interrogation of the police suspect, there was an intention to use or dispose of another person's goods as his/her own property, the Defendant: (a) discovered that there was a fact that another person's goods have been brought to the police at the time of interrogation of the police suspect; (b) discovered that there was a good tree from the time when the police was examined; and (c) cut the trees to a saw, cut the trees to a saw, cut the trees to a saw, cut the trees to a saw, loaded the trees to the wife, and loaded the trees into a saw, but he/she was dismissed from committing the crime.”

(No. 20) According to the Defendant’s statement, the Defendant appears to have been aware of the fact that, even if he did not know of the ownership of the tree to whom it belongs accurately, the instant tree nes, which is cut off, is owned by another person.

(2) The Defendant, together with the Defendant, stated in the police investigation that the wife of the Defendant, who carried the above wooden round, stated that “I need a fire-fighting tree by putting many snows after Crisma, I think that the fire-fighting tree was needed, I think that I would bring about a tree before and after Crisma, and that her husband was first a tree, and that I would like to do so.” In particular, I clearly responded to the question whether I knew of the tree owner or not.

(Evidence No. 37-38 of the Evidence Records). Comprehensively considering the above statements by the Defendant and C, the true owner at the time when the Defendant and C lost the boomed flaps into the vehicle.