All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the embezzlement among the facts charged in the instant case by mistake and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the victim C did not acquire the ownership of the ship because it was not true that the seller had dealt with the seller F or with the Defendant’s intent to own the ship of this case, but did not have completed the registration.

In addition, the victim was in de facto marital relationship with the defendant

Since K’s mother paid the purchase price for the ship to the Defendant and was planning to receive part of the proceeds from the ship to the Defendant, it is difficult to view that the Defendant and the victim are in the same trade relationship or have a substantial vessel owner’s status, and there is a relationship under the term “a life-free agreement similar to an anonymous association

must be viewed.

Therefore, since the owner of the instant ship is the defendant, the act of disposal of the instant ship by the defendant does not constitute embezzlement.

Of the facts charged in the instant case, the Defendant was in de facto marital relationship with K at the time when the victim K, and the victim was trying to calculate the drinking value with the physical card in the name of Dong L, so that the card is not used without permission.

At the same time, the card was kept by cutting off the card, and the next day the victim's mother C is urgently required to pay the money, so that the card was used and returned first.

Since approval for use has been obtained and money used after the mold has been repaid, larceny, etc. is not established.

Therefore, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. Determination 1 on the Defendant’s misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine as to the embezzlement portion belongs to the partnership property’s unity, so one of the union members is limited.