The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In the misunderstanding of the facts and legal principles, the Defendant’s Ma-2,613 square meters before E (hereinafter “instant land”) acquired ownership under the circumstances in the Japanese colonial era by the Defendant’s Y F, and trust the ownership to P, who was the president of the house in the name of the house that is likely to believe that the Ma-2,613 square meters of the instant land was damaged by the Ma-25 square meters, and later, the Defendant’s Ma-25 square meters during the B Qm (hereinafter “the instant clan”).

BC completed the registration of the preservation of ownership in the name of the clan of this case for the purpose of obtaination by the father of the defendant, and in around 1972, the ownership was completed in the name of B S M M M in the name of around 1972 (hereinafter “the text of this case”).

Therefore, the instant land is owned by the Defendant who succeeded to F’s property, and the Defendant succeeded to F’s position as a truster with respect to the instant real estate through R. As such, the Defendant’s disposal of the instant land by the trustor under the name of the actual owner of the instant land does not constitute embezzlement, and the Defendant did not have the intent of embezzlement.

B. The sentence of the lower court (three years of imprisonment) against an unjust defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination on the Defendant’s misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. The judgment of the court below also asserted the same purport, but it is reasonable to view that the land of this case is owned by the property of this case in full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence adopted and investigated by the court below, and at least there was an intentional act of embezzlement of the land of this case, at least by the defendant.

The defendant's assertion was rejected on the ground that it was judged.

1) The land D was assessed in the name of the Defendant F during the period of Japanese colonial rule, and the registration was completed in P’s name, and at the time, was stated as a clan property.

After August 6, 1969, the registration of ownership preservation was completed in the name of the clan, and on April 27, 1972.