The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 4,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact misunderstanding 1) In order to punish the Defendant as a crime of acquiring the property of the chief of office, the Defendant requires sacrific test that the Defendant purchased from G is an stolen stolen by G. The offender G was punished for embezzlement of the stolen test not for embezzlement but for embezzlement of the sales proceeds of the sacrific test.

Therefore, it is not a stolen test purchased by the defendant, but a crime of acquiring water from the chief of the office is not established.

2) Based on G’s statement, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged, and rendered a verdict of not guilty on the charge of acquiring stolen goods based on G’s statement, etc. G’s statement is not reliable.

There is no occupational and practical reason for the defendant.

B. The sentence sentenced by the court below to the defendant (the imprisonment of four months, the suspension of execution of one year, and the community service work of 160 hours) is too unreasonable.

2. In light of the facts stated in the judgment below and the applicable provisions of the law, prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant ex officio, the court below recognized the fact that the defendant acquired stolen goods on duty and on duty, and sentenced the defendant to a suspended sentence of one year for four months by applying Articles 364 and 362(1) of the Criminal Act.

However, according to Article 364 of the Criminal Act, a person who commits a crime under Article 362 of the Criminal Act on duty and on duty is punished by imprisonment without prison labor for not more than one year or by a fine not exceeding five million won. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and therefore, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained any more in this respect.

However, notwithstanding the above reasons for reversal of authority, the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts is still subject to the judgment of this court, and we will examine below.

3. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. As to the assertion that the instant interior test is not a stolen test, relating to 1).