The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant purchased the instant container from the victim C, and even if not, the victim renounced the ownership of the instant container (hereinafter “the first argument”), and since the instant container lost its value as property (hereinafter “the second argument”), there is an error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles in finding the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in the instant case.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below's decision as to the first argument, namely, ① the defendant and the victim first divided the discussion about the container of this case around January 20, 201. At the time, there was no discussion about the sale and purchase of the container of this case and the price therefor between the defendant and the victim (H's legal statement in the court below). ② The victim consistently received KRW 80,000 from the police to the court below, from the defendant, 3,50,000 from the defendant, spent KRW 1,50,000 as the cost of transportation at the scene, and the remaining KRW 30,000 as the cost of transportation at the scene was paid at the time, and there was only stated that the defendant did not receive the purchase price of the container of this case. ③ The defendant paid the expenses for the transfer of the container of this case and the responsibility for its relocation and installation was also borne by him, and the defendant's statement to the purport that it was owned by the defendant and the victim of this case.