The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

A A shall be punished by a fine of three million won, by imprisonment with prison labor for four months.

Defendant .

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In order for misunderstanding Defendants to become the subject of the crime of breach of trust as a person who administers the business of the victim, there is a fiduciary relationship under the good faith principle that the Defendants should cooperate in obtaining the ownership of the forest of this case from the victim.

In accordance with the instant exchange contract, the time when the Defendants are handling the business of the victims ought to be the time after the double selling of real estate, such as the receipt of intermediate payments, has occurred.

Although the civil litigation on the instant officetel ownership continues, there is a fiduciary relationship where at least the judgment of winning the Defendant A in the above civil litigation is required.

Before the judgment in favor of the Defendants rendered a favorable judgment, the Defendants disposed of the forest land of this case and did not handle the business of the victim, and therefore, the Defendants cannot be held liable for breach of trust.

B. Fact-misunderstanding 1) The instant exchange contract was cancelled by agreement explicitly or implicitly on December 2013, and is not so.

Even if the Defendants rescinded the instant exchange contract

Although there was a justifiable reason to believe that the Defendants sold the forest land of this case thereafter, the crime of breach of trust cannot be established.

2) As the wife of Defendant B, Defendant A was only the nominal owner of the instant forest land, which is the actual ownership of Defendant B, and there was no fact in collusion with Defendant B regarding the conclusion of the instant exchange contract and the disposition of the instant forest land.

(c)

The punishment sentenced by the court below to the defendants is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court regarding the assertion of misunderstanding the legal doctrine, Defendant A was under a fiduciary relationship between the victim and the Defendant before disposing of the instant forest. As to the instant forest, the Defendant A is the victim.