The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the fact that the Defendant did not sell the Defendant’s art works to the Flusium, and even considering the minutes of the Flusium meeting submitted by the Prosecutor or the statement of Flusium I at the time, it is insufficient to conclude that this work is owned by Flusium. However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby finding the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in the instant case where the Defendant embezzled the instant work owned by Flusium by refusing to return.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted by the determination of facts or misapprehension of legal principles regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, the following facts can be recognized as stated by the court below.

The work of this case produced by the defendant was exhibited in the Fembian conference for not less than 20 years, and the defendant visited this church to make up for the repair of the work of this case, as many as the work is damaged, and the repair period was 1 to 2 months.

The Defendant brought the instant work, carried the Defendant’s substitute work on the site in which the work was located, and borne the cost of transporting the work by the church.

He at the time stated that he would not allow the Defendant to recover and return the instant work, if he received a father G or a report that the Defendant had directed the Defendant to bring the instant work.

At the time of the display of the instant works in this church, the Defendant, at the time, did not have such a situation as the church would display the famous works, but this case’s works were franked with the Defendant at the time of the exhibition of the said church, but 5 million won, and the Defendant would die at the church with his consent, and the Defendant would bring the works and put them up to the church, and thereafter, the Defendant was paid five million won to the Defendant through a meeting of the church planning committee.

(e).