The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

A Imprisonment for one year and each of the defendants B shall be punished by imprisonment for eight months.

, however, the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A 1) In fact, Defendant A was unaware of the content of the court’s conciliation, and there was no intention or criminal intent to evade compulsory execution.

In addition, the machines as stated in the facts charged (hereinafter referred to as “the machines of this case”) delegated the custody of J prior to the establishment of the conciliation, and thereafter they were removed and disposed of after the conciliation was established, and the above J did not conceal the said retetetete machine.

However, the lower court found Defendant A guilty of the facts charged in the instant case. In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

2) The sentence of the lower court (one hundred months of imprisonment) which is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) misunderstanding of the facts and legal principles, although the Defendants knew that D was purchasing from M Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “M”) a chi manufacturing machine (hereinafter referred to as “chi manufacturing machine of this case”) as indicated in the facts charged, the J had J sell the said machine to a third party, which is sufficiently recognized as embezzlement, and even if the owner of the said machine is M, it constitutes embezzlement against the Defendant.

In doing so, the lower court determined that the Defendants were innocent on this part of the facts charged. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts.

2) The sentence against the Defendants (Defendant A: Imprisonment with prison labor for 10 months, Defendant B: not guilty) in the lower court’s unfair sentencing is too unfased and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court and the first instance court as to the Defendant A’s assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant A actively participated in the said lawsuit by appointing an attorney-at-law when the F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “F”) operated by Defendant A (hereinafter “F”) was brought a lawsuit claiming construction price from the victim G Co., Ltd.