The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-misunderstanding and legal principles 1) When the registration of the incorporation of the forest land as stated in the facts charged of the instant case (hereinafter “the forest land of this case”) was made in the name of H, I (the descendants of the victim’s clan refer to K’s general secretary at present) and J (the defendant’s referred to as “the family of this case”) with respect to the forest land of this case (hereinafter “the forest of this case”), a clan, the damage of which is 24 years old members of D, has an organic organization to a certain extent.

It is difficult to see the forest land of this case, and the process or content of the forest land owned by the victim's clan was not proved directly, and there is no circumstance to regard the forest land as the ownership of the victim's clan.

The forest land of this case is purchased by H, etc. with their own funds and registered as joint oil, and is not owned by the victim clan.

Nevertheless, on the premise that the victim's species were the owner of the forest of this case and trust in the future name, such as clan H, etc., he embezzled by the Defendant by consuming the compensation for expropriation of the forest of this case partially remitted to the Defendant.

The lower judgment erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the nominal trust, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The Defendant did not know that the forest land of this case was trusted in the name of the victim clan and the compensation for confinement should be reverted to the victim clan. Therefore, the Defendant did not have the intention of embezzlement.

B. The sentence of the lower court (eight months of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence adopted by the lower court, the lower court determined that the instant forest was the land trusted to the Defendant and H and K as the owner of the victim’s clan, and that the instant forest was the land trusted to H and K.

① As to the forest of this case, H and K shall consistently be the forest of this case with the Defendant.