The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The list (hereinafter “the list”) recorded in the facts constituting the crime as indicated in the judgment of the court below, which was installed in the factory building C (hereinafter “the building of this case”) at the time when the ownership of the defendant was held by the court below was consistent with the building of this case, and thus, it is owned by the defendant.

B. The Defendant had no awareness of the fact that the instant heading was affiliated with the instant building, or that the victim renounced ownership of the instant heading, and thus, was owned by the victim.

C. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. A. Around April 2, 2006, the summary of the facts charged: (a) the Defendant agreed to sell the instant building owned by the Defendant to the victim D; and (b) if the victim’s failure to execute the contract would be cancelled, the victim would take out all the machinery and products located in the said building.

However, the above sales contract was terminated on April 4, 2007 because the victim did not pay part of the purchase price, and the victim left the above building with the head of the family equivalent to 27 million won at the market price owned by the victim while keeping the head of this case out of the above building.

After that, on August 3, 2013, while the Defendant kept the family list of this case for the victim, the Defendant arbitrarily sold the family list of this case to E from the building of this case for KRW 2 million and embezzled it.

B. The court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case, considering that it is difficult to see that the list of this case was consistent with the building of this case, and that the defendant was aware of the fact that the list of this case was another person's property in his custody.

C. In order for a movable to be recognized as being consistent with the real estate pursuant to Article 256 of the Civil Act, the first instance judgment is required to determine whether the instant list was consistent with the instant building.