The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

1. The appellant who made a decision on the appeal of a defendant shall submit the appellate brief to the appellate court within 20 days from the date on which he/she received the notification of the receipt of the trial records (Article 361-3(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act), and if the appellate brief is not submitted within the said period,

(1) According to the records, the Defendant did not submit the statement of grounds for appeal within the 20-day period for submitting the statement of grounds for appeal under Article 361-3(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act even if the Defendant received the notification of the receipt of the trial records from the court on March 4, 2015 after filing an appeal against the lower judgment, and the petition of appeal does not contain any statement in the grounds for appeal.

The defendant and his defense counsel asserted that the defendant disposed of the D real estate owned by the victim's clan (hereinafter referred to as "the real estate of this case") through a legitimate resolution of the board of directors of the clan C on the first day of the trial of the political party.

ex officio, the court below stated that "the above real estate was disposed of at will without the authority to dispose of the real estate of this case," and the facts charged in the court below also acknowledged that the defendant did not go through the resolution of the general meeting of the victims, but the defendant argued that the circumstances that passed the resolution of the general meeting of the victims were considered in sentencing (the 73th page of the trial record). However, a new argument is presented to the purport that the defendant delegated the general meeting of the victims of this case to the general meeting of the general meeting of the shareholders in 2009 and 2010 when the resolution of the division sale of the real estate of this case was made at the general meeting of the shareholders in 209 and 2010. The materials submitted by the defendant alone are insufficient to verify whether there was a legitimate general meeting resolution.