The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal by the defendant;

A. In light of the fact-finding or legal principles, the supply price of goods imported by the Defendant under the name of “E” (hereinafter only referred to as “G”) under the name of “E”), and deposited in the account under the name of “E” cannot be recognized as the custodian’s status. The Defendant notified the victim, etc. of the fact at the request of a person related to the Gu office according to the standards for local government tender and contract execution, and the Defendant did not pay the price of goods deposited in the name of “E” despite the victim’s request, because there was a dispute over the ratio of profit distribution. Thus, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby convicting the Defendant of the facts charged.

B. Not on the grounds of unfair sentencing

However, in light of the fact that the quantity of the snow imported in the name of E should also be taken into account, and that the defendant has no special criminal record, the sentence of the court below (one month of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, and 80 hours of community service order) imposed on the defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. On the other hand, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the defendant concluded a partnership contract with the victim and agreed to deliver them to the government offices and distribute sales profits when the defendant imported snow materials from the victim's management G. The price that the defendant received after delivery of snow materials imported by G shall be deemed to have been in the position of the defendant as the same business property regardless of the name of the delivery contractor, and therefore, the defendant distributed profits and losses on the ground that there is a dispute over the ratio of profit distribution.