2. According to the evidence duly examined and adopted by the lower court, the lower court acknowledged the following facts: (a) the Defendant, around November 16, 201, posted a phone call to the victim engaged in the business of purchasing and selling used goods; (b) sold five air conditioners established in the second floor office located in Gwangjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, and transferred KRW 570,000 to the deposit account designated by the Defendant; (c) the Defendant, the original owner of the public prosecution, and H, sold to the non-public prosecutor around November 15, 201.

According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant can fully recognize the fact that the defendant acquired money from the victim by carrying out the air conditioner owned by another person, not his own property, as if he were his own property, and selling it to the victim. Thus, the above argument by the defendant is without merit.

(1) The defendant asserts that he purchased the above Air conditioner in the statement of grounds of appeal, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it, and that the defendant can dispose of air conditioner owned by He at will to recover the air conditioner because he would receive money from the original owner of Air conditioner, but this argument cannot be accepted as independent, and as seen above, Air conditioner is not the debtor's ownership at the time of committing the crime, and even if it is owned by H, it cannot be recognized that the defendant has the authority to dispose of it at the time of the crime unless the recovery of claims is performed by legitimate means, since the defendant's appeal is without merit, it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.