The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts on October 27, 2016, Defendant 1 did not constitute the crime of causing special property damage and embezzlement since the Defendant transferred the ownership of a bicycle from the victim and destroyed and disposed of the bicycle that became one’s own possession. Although there was a fact that the Defendant inflicted an injury on the victim, it was not the date and time indicated in the facts charged, but around November 15, 2016, and the Defendant did not have detained the victim against the victim’s will. Nevertheless, the lower court’s judgment convicting all the charges of causing special property damage, embezzlement, bodily injury, and confinement was erroneous and adversely affected the conclusion of the judgment. (2) The lower court’s sentence of unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution, etc.) is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s sentence is too unfilled and unfair.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below regarding the determination of the 1 special material damage and embezzlement as to the assertion of mistake of facts, it is sufficient to find the defendant guilty of the charges of causing damage to the special material of this case and embezzlement on the ground that the defendant had sold a bicycle to the victim as gift, the victim was not boarding the bicycle, the defendant left the bicycle on the day of the crime, and knife the knife with the bicycle with the bicycle wheels on the same day, and on the same day, the victim did not have the right to governance, and the victim refused to return the bicycle.

In this regard, the defendant lent 3.6 million won to the victim around the time when he loaded the bicycle onto a vehicle, and the defendant agreed to dispose of the bicycle in order to repay the money borrowed from the victim, and thus the ownership of the bicycle belongs to the defendant around that time, but there is no evidence to prove that the victim made an explicit or implied agreement that he will transfer the ownership of the bicycle to the defendant under the pretext of payment in kind.