The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows: (a) the Defendant sold to the victim the ginseng of the ginseng field of the ginseng field of the Cheongju City (hereinafter “the ginseng of this case”); (b) the Defendant’s creditor G, upon obtaining a provisional attachment order on the ginseng of this case; and (c) the Defendant sold the ginseng of this case with the consent of the JJ as the actual owner of the ginseng of this case; and (d) the Defendant was unaware of the facts of winning the case at the first instance court of the third party’s objection against G, which the J sufficiently notified the victim of the winning case.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which convicted the defendant of the facts charged of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts and affected the conclusion of the judgment (the defendant's defense counsel added the sentencing on the ground of unfair appeal at the first trial date of the trial of the court below, but this cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal since it was asserted after the lapse of the time limit for appeal).

A. Determination 1 on the Defendant’s assertion of mistake as to the Defendant’s facts was also asserted in the lower court. As to this, the lower court consistently stated that ① the victim and broker I did not have been presented a judgment of the first instance court or notified of the provisional seizure from the Defendant, ② the agreement of ginseng distribution between the Defendant and the victim does not stipulate the fact of provisional seizure or the fact that the lawsuit is pending, ③ although he won the case against G in the first instance court of the lawsuit of demurrer against the third party against G, the Defendant did not appear to have purchased the ginseng of this case without any specific condition if he knew that the damaged party was provisionally seized, and the appellate court of the above case continued to purchase the ginseng of this case without any specific condition. In full view of the above, it is deemed that the Defendant did not inform the victim of the provisional seizure of the ginseng of this case or the fact that the third party objection is pending.