The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Since each stone listed in the crime inundation table as stated in the judgment of the court below with misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles is that the defendant directly operated and produced and sold E, it cannot be readily concluded that it is the victim's ownership.

Even if the above stones were jointly operated with the victim, the defendant thought that the above stones were owned by the defendant, so the defendant did not have any intent to commit embezzlement and damage property.

B. In addition, among each of the above stones, the stone for each of the above crimes Nos. 3 through 7 of the stone is not the stone in the E located in Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, and the stone is stored in the Simsan-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, and it is only the stone inevitably transferred to the residence of the defendant due to a violation of the Mountainous Districts Management Act, and thus, the defendant does not embezzled it as stated in the facts charged.

In addition, the victim sold the stone of the crime Nos. 9 in the above crime list to I, and as the stone at the present I's house, the defendant does not have embezzled.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (an amount of KRW 3 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and legal principles, the lower court: (a) on the assertion that the Defendant did not own the victim or did not have any criminal intent; (b) on the part of the Defendant, the lower court stated that ① there was an accusation against the victim on the ground that the Defendant stolen three signboards inside E by investigative agencies; and (c) on May 19, 201, the Defendant would offer all the property, including E

The following facts are revealed: (a) the Defendant sent a certificate of content; (b) the Defendant was accused of the victim by causing a change in the background; and (c) the Defendant was subject to a disposition of non-prosecution (no suspicion) on the ground that it was impossible to recognize the victim’s intention to obtain unlawful acquisition; (b) the Defendant did not specifically discuss other property including the instant stone in addition to the real estate in the process of the property division lawsuit filed against the victim on November 201; and (c) the Defendant divided