All appeals filed by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A 1) The Defendant A had no intention to conceal another person’s bus while changing the parking lot of S Bus (hereinafter “instant bus”).

B) As Defendant A succeeded to the status of a land owner from R, Defendant A is deemed to be the Korea-Nam Tour Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Korea-Nam Tour”).

(2) The sentencing of the first instance court (one year and six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution) on Defendant A is too unreasonable, even if the delivery of the instant bus is demanded by the Plaintiff.

B. The sentencing of the first instance court on the Defendants by the prosecutor (unfair sentencing on the Defendants) (the Defendant A is the same as the above. The Defendant B is the one year and two years of suspended execution in the one year and two years of suspended execution in the one year and two years of suspended execution in the one0s of imprisonment in the one, and the two years of suspended execution in

2. As to Defendant B and C’s appeal, Defendant B and C filed a petition of appeal on April 29, 2015, Defendant B and Defendant C did not submit the appellate brief within the lawful period for submission of the appellate brief even if they were served on May 20, 2015, and Defendant C received the notification of receipt of notification on June 29, 2015. The grounds for ex officio investigation can not be found even after examining the grounds for appeal ex officio, considering the grounds for appeal by Defendant C, alleged after the lapse of the period for submission of the appellate brief.

Therefore, in accordance with Article 361-4(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, a decision to dismiss the appeal by the above Defendants should be made, but as long as a judgment is rendered on the appeal by the co-defendants and the prosecutor's appeal, the dismissal of appeal should not be decided separately

3. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the first instance court’s duly adopted and investigated evidence regarding Defendant A’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, Defendant A conspired with the remaining Defendants and moved the bus of this case to the intent to conceal another’s property as stated in the first instance court’s holding.