The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

However, the above punishment for a period of two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The defendant (misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles) of the instant native trees are trees planted and managed as landscape trees in D with the consent of the owner of the land in Yongcheon-si F (hereinafter "the instant land") prior to about 300 years, and the present D, which was reconstructed by the defendant's L put around around 1958, was acquired by the past inspection.

Therefore, the instant trees are owned by D, and even if not, they are not owned.

Even if the fact that the victim was owned was proven without reasonable doubt;

It is difficult to see that the witness G (victim), K, I, and J of the lower court are those in a hostile relationship with the Defendant, and thus the credibility of the statement cannot be recognized.

In addition, the instant case is owned by the victim.

Even if the Defendant recognized and managed the instant native trees as owned by D, no consignment relationship cannot be recognized, and it cannot be deemed that the intent of embezzlement and illegal acquisition is recognized.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment on the facts charged of this case.

B. The prosecutor (unfair sentencing)’s sentence sentenced by the court below to the defendant (the imprisonment of eight months and the suspension of execution of two years) is too unhutiled and unfair.

2. Before the judgment on the grounds of ex officio appeal, the prosecutor examined the part of the facts charged in the instant case as follows: “The part of the facts charged in the instant case that “The victim G was managed by the victim for the victim with the said F land and the instant F land from around September 2, 2009 to after the purchase of 2 gys of f and the instant F land from around September 2, 2009,” which read “The two gys of the instant F land and the instant gys planted therein, are being managed by the victim for the victim G,” and this Court permitted the modification of the indictment.

As such, the judgment of the court was modified, the judgment below is added.