The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

Of the facts charged in the instant case.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Regarding the fact that Defendant (misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, and misunderstanding of sentencing) Section 1), there was no fact that the Defendant was involved in the sale of the damaged items owned by the victim of the crime, the species of the law, the lag, and the lag of the wood (hereinafter “victim”) and the end from M and N, that the Defendant sold the damaged items of the instant case later from M and N, and that it does not constitute larceny (misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles) since it was disposed of the damaged items with H’s permission, as stated in the facts of the lower judgment, with regard to the violation of the Creation and Management of Forest Resources Act, it was for the purpose of “I’s normalization,” which is the matters ordered by H as the facts of the crime in the lower judgment, but it was for the purpose of “I’s normalization,” which is the matters ordered by the victim foundation, and thus, not for the Defendant, the victim foundation, and the Defendant, who was the competent office, without obtaining permission to cut standing trees.

Even if it cannot be seen as subject to punishment (misunderstanding of legal principles) (3) the lower court’s sentencing (2) is unfair due to excessive misunderstanding of the sentencing (unfair sentencing). (1) In relation to the prosecutor (misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, and misunderstanding of sentencing) violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (an unfair sentencing), H, a victim foundation, filed a civil lawsuit against W and Y company several times, and obtained recognition from the court that the victim had ownership of each real estate listed in the separate sheet from the court, but the Defendant arbitrarily concluded the litigation procedure and caused the risk of actual damage to the victim’s property because the ownership of each real estate listed in the separate sheet was finally reverted to AD party and caused the risk of actual damage to the victim’s property. (2) The lower court’s judgment that acquitted the Defendant on this part is unreasonable (misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles).

A. The intention of Section 1 is to determine the Defendant’s misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine.