The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and inappropriate sentencing) is that the F land (hereinafter “instant land”) is owned by not only the victim D (hereinafter “victim’s clan”) but also the G (hereinafter “G”). Since the Defendant paid the proceeds of selling the 1/2 share of the instant land with the consent of the members of G clan, it is deemed that the Defendant committed embezzlement.

shall not be deemed to exist.

Defendant guilty

Even if the court below's punishment (six months of imprisonment) is unfair, it is unfair.

2. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s duly admitted and investigated evidence, it is reasonable to view the instant land as the ownership of the victim’s clan. Thus, regardless of whether the land had undergone a resolution at the general assembly of G, the Defendant’s act of paying the public sale price for the 1/2 share as his/her own litigation cost constitutes embezzlement.

This part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

① Prior to the instant case, the Defendant was indicted on the suspicion that the Defendant, as the victim’s possession of a clan, was trusted to the deceased E, and that the Defendant embezzled the land, etc. of the original city, U.S. (hereinafter “non-owned land”) inherited. The first instance court proved that the non-owned land is the family of the victim’s clan.

Although the appellate court rendered a non-guilty verdict, it is difficult to see that the land was owned by the victim clan and sentenced to one year of imprisonment, considering the following facts, the appellate court's judgment became final and conclusive as it is (this Court 2014 senior order 1147, 2015 senior order 674, Supreme Court 2016Do1462). The list of each of the documents and instruments and the land on the letter of undertaking, the subject of cancellation registration and ownership verification in the civil litigation in 1982, the list of land at issue in the preliminary injunction case in 2008 included both the separate land and the instant land, and the above criminal judgment and conclusion are finalized at the trial.