The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In collusion with co-defendant B of the lower judgment, there is no fact that the Defendant, in collusion with Co-defendant B of the lower court, had B deceptioned the limited construction work, thereby deceiving the victim of USD 430,797.

In addition, at the time of the transfer of the above female-use land to G cargo warehouse, the J cannot be deemed to have engaged in the act of disposal, such as permitting the removal of the land by the Defendant’s deception, and there is no causation between deception and the act of disposal, and the Defendant cannot be deemed to have acquired the right to dispose of the instant cargo

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (two years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In the trial of the court below, the prosecutor of the ex officio judgment applied for the amendment of the indictment to the effect that the victim is a limited liability company in the eth century among the selective charges of this case, as stated in the following "crimes". Since this court permitted this, the judgment of the court below was no longer maintained.

However, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of this court.

B. According to the judgment of the court below and the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the defendant, in collusion with Co-Defendant B of the court below, conspired with Co-Defendant B of the judgment of the court below, got through customs the delivery of USD 430,797,000,000, which is women's use by women who are owned by JJ as the victim U.S., and acquired it by transferring it to G cargo warehouse of the case. As such, the defendant's deception, J limited construction and the mistake of the limited company and the disposal act resulting therefrom, the

I would like to say.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of mistake and misapprehension of legal principles is without merit.

3. Conclusion, the court below's decision.