The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

However, for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the Defendant, by misapprehending the legal doctrine, did not agree to take part in the victim, C, and D, who met the first time on January 2013, 2013, to take part in the exchange of other real estate instead of the “family house,” and thus, the Defendant’s arbitrary sale of “family house,” around February 2013, constitutes a crime of breach of trust against the Defendant, and accordingly, the Defendant’s filing of a criminal prosecution against the victim under the suspicion of breach of trust does not constitute an offense of accusation.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (nine months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Before determining the grounds for appeal ex officio, the lower court committed an unlawful act of omitting the application of the statutes to the Defendant on the grounds of the judgment, and in this respect, the lower judgment was no longer maintained.

However, despite the above reasons for reversal of authority, the defendant's assertion of mistake or misunderstanding of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined.

3. Judgment on the misapprehension of the legal principle or mistake of facts

A. The summary of the facts charged is as follows: (a) the Defendant entered into an exchange contract with C and D (alias E) on November 8, 2012 on the condition of succeeding the respective obligations on November 25, 2012 (hereinafter “instant exchange contract”); (b) the Defendant entered into an exchange contract with C and D on the condition of succeeding the respective obligations on the part of the Defendant, for whom the Defendant had a right to claim the transfer of ownership (hereinafter “Hcom”); (c) the Defendant was unable to succeed the horizontal mortgage debt of KRW 200,000,000,000,000 for the extended period of one month on December 28, 2012, inasmuch as the Defendant had failed to complete the registration of ownership transfer on the mother-Gun G site, which was owned by the Victim F and the victim; and (d) the Defendant did not complete the registration of ownership transfer on the housing before the expiration of the ownership transfer on the housing.

Accordingly, the Defendant on January 2013, Incheon Bupyeong-gu, 201.