All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. (i) The Defendant’s misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine is to remove the three building units (hereinafter collectively referred to as “instant building”) as indicated in the judgment of the court below and remove the closed steel bars, etc. from the victim’s prior consent.

In addition, the defendant believed that he had the right to dispose of the building of this case according to the terms of the real estate security trust agreement entered into between the victim and the case non-real estate trust company, and the lawyer was consulted in advance, so the defendant did not have the intention to destroy property and larceny.

Nevertheless, the lower court found all of the charges of this case guilty. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine or misunderstanding the facts (the supplement of the grounds for appeal by the defense counsel submitted after the expiration of the period for submitting the appeal shall be determined within the scope of supplement to the grounds for appeal specified in the reasons for appeal, and the defense counsel’s assertion that is not entirely indicated in the reasons for appeal shall not be determined separately). Sheshesheshedd the sentencing unfair sentence (two years of suspended sentence in one and half years of imprisonment)

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In addition to the circumstances that the lower court’s judgment on the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine in detail (such as that the ownership or right to dispose of the building of this case exists only for the victim, and that the real estate security trust agreement between the victim and the K non-real estate trust company does not transfer the above ownership or right to disposal to the Defendant) as well as the circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court. In other words, the Defendant purchased the six parcel of land as indicated in the lower judgment’s judgment at a public sale around March 2014, and conducted a consultation with the victim, and the victim all the rights to the building and the owner of the building of this case.