The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the period of one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendants, misunderstanding the facts, upon intrusion upon the victim’s residence, stolen and stolen the application documents for provisional attachment and provisional disposition owned by the victim. However, there exists two copies of the registration certificate of real estate right and the real estate transaction agreement concerning the land of this case on December 27, 2008, respectively (i.e., the person (i., December 27, 2008 and January 9, 2009). Of them, the Defendants were actually prepared by the Defendants, and were kept in the Defendant’s depository.

The real estate sale contract, which is claimed, is the self-real estate sale contract on December 27, 2008.

On January 9, 2009, the Defendants asserted that the contract for the purchase and sale of real estate was forged by the injured party, and recognized the fact that the contract was stolen by the injured party.

“No” was stolen.

At the time, the registration certificate of the above real estate and the real estate transaction contract were kept in the treasury owned by the defendant A.

Nevertheless, the Defendants stolen the above certificate of right to registration of real estate and the real estate sale contract.

In light of the facts charged before the amendment, the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court (two years of suspended sentence for each year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. In the first sentence of the facts charged in the instant case, the prosecutor’s ex officio judgment changed the indictment to “real estate registration certificate and real estate transaction agreement” of the second sentence of the instant charges to “real estate registration certificate (the document of Gangwon-do W was replaced by “90 square meters prior to the Z of Gangwon-do, Gangwon-do.” However, according to the division of the above land recorded in the record, it appears to be erroneous, and even if it was corrected ex officio, it does not seem to be a substantial disadvantage to the Defendants’ exercise of their rights to defense. Accordingly, the aforementioned correction is made as above.

The 990 square meters prior to 990 square meters and W ground brick structure.