All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant (1) misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles, and at the time when Defendant 1 caused E dump trucks (hereinafter “dump trucks of this case”), the victim was sump trucks of this case “sump trucks”

It can not be seen that Defendant only recovered the truck at the request of G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “G”), the owner, and thus, it cannot be deemed as “other person’s property”. The Defendant did not have the intent of larceny and illegal acquisition.

In addition, one G does not recognize the transfer security right of D with respect to the instant dump truck.

(2) The sentence of the lower court (one year of imprisonment with prison labor for four months, one year of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

B. The prosecutor (unfair sentencing)’s sentence is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination on the Defendant’s misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. As to the Defendant’s assertion to the same effect as the grounds for appeal, the lower court found that ① the Defendant borrowed KRW 35 million from D to use the instant dump truck as the collateral, and: (a) the Defendant prepared “certificate of vehicle use”; (b) the Defendant, after the ownership of the instant dump truck was transferred to G through F, was a manager or employee of each company; (c) the Defendant was in charge of the instant dump truck including the instant dump truck; (d) around October 2014, the Defendant transferred the instant dump truck to D at the request of D; and (e) the Defendant allowed D to exclusively use the instant dump truck with its entrance at the site of its apartment; and (c) even if it was not a dump truck, it appears that D was partially able to operate the instant dump truck in the same manner; and (e) it still remains due to the Defendant’s obligation to provide Dump truck as the aforementioned dump truck.