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

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendants 1) 1 of the lower judgment’s mistake (the part of the lower judgment’s conviction (the Defendant 1’s theft of pine trees located in Gangwon-gun) was delegated by G for the sale of pine trees owned by the Victim F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “victim Co., Ltd.”), and the Defendants’ act does not constitute larceny.

B) Even if Defendant B failed to obtain comprehensive delegation from G, Defendant B requested the sale of pine trees to Defendant A to resolve the management difficulties of the victim company, and thus there was no intention to obtain unjust enrichment, and Defendant A did not participate in the theft act.

Defendant

A Since Defendant B’s request was trusted and sold at the request of the victim company, there is no intention to larceny.

2) On September 28, 2017, the reason for appeal on September 28, 2017, arguing that the sentence of the same punishment as Defendant A against Defendant B is unfair.

Although defense counsel held a pleading about sentencing against Defendant A on the trial date, it is not judged separately because it is argued after the lapse of the period for filing an appeal.

The sentence of the lower court (six months of imprisonment, one year of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) misunderstanding the facts of the lower judgment (the part of the lower judgment’s acquittal (the part on the theft of pine trees located in Gangwon-gun)) was consistently stated that there is no prior consent to the removal of pine trees prior to the payment of the down payment; there is no indication as to whether the removal of pine trees prior to the down payment can be made in the contract; Defendant A did not notify G in the process of removal of pine trees and paid KRW 2 million unpaid rent for the land owner; Defendant B’s oral statement at the prosecutor’s office that there was a verbal agreement to take out pine trees prior to the down payment was insufficient to believe that the statement at the end of Defendant B’s prosecutor’s office that there was an oral agreement to take out pine trees prior to the down payment is inconsistent; G sent the Defendants to recover pine trees from its original condition on February 23, 2015.