The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

The sentence of sentence against A shall be suspended.

Defendant

B. Defendant B is innocent.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

Defendant

A Ownership of a composite board and a rectangular timber, etc. (hereinafter “victimd goods of this case”) written in the facts charged against A is the defendant, and there is no intention to larceny. Therefore, larceny is not established.

(In fact-finding and misunderstanding of legal principles). The sentencing of the lower court (1.5 million won of a fine) is too unreasonable.

(F) Defendant B’s ownership of the damaged goods of this case is against Defendant A, and even if not, the Defendant believed that the ownership or the right to dispose of the damaged goods of this case is against the upper accused, so there was no intention of larceny. Therefore, larceny is not established.

(In fact-finding and misunderstanding of legal principles). The sentencing (one million won of a fine) of the court below is too unreasonable.

(2) The court below held that Defendant A’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles as to the grounds for appeal is identical to the judgment of the court below, but the court below held the Defendant guilty of the facts charged by compiling the evidence duly adopted and examined, and rejected the Defendant’s above assertion with detailed reasons in the part of “decision on the Defendant’s argument.”

Examining the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below in comparison with the records, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty is just ( regardless of whether the substantial relationship between the defendant and the victim is a subcontract relationship, ownership of the damaged goods in this case is the victim who directly paid the price, and the defendant, even though he was well aware that the defendant was the victim, disposed of the difference in the management of the victim without permission.) and it cannot be said that there is an error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misconception of the fact. Thus, this part of the

Defendant

With respect to the argument of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles in B, the damage of this case is caused in collusion with the defendant A.