The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. A person who was entrusted with the sale of solid art products as stated in the facts charged of this case by mistake is not the defendant but the defendant's fraudulent N, and a direct consignment relationship exists between the victim and the defendant.

It is difficult to see that embezzlement is not established.

Therefore, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (two years of imprisonment with prison labor for six months, two years of probation, and 80 hours of community service) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined in the lower court and the first instance court as to the assertion of mistake of facts, the lower court’s determination that found the Defendant guilty is justifiable, and the Defendant’s assertion is without merit, since the Defendant kept 27.6 million won of the sales proceeds of high art works for the victim and embezzled them for personal use.

① In line with the process of introducing the Defendant to the victim as a long-term relative of the Defendant’s false N and the Defendant’s long-term organ, T’s statement is generally consistent with the Defendant’s statement (T), and the nature of the overall sales consignment relationship with respect to the instant high-tech art works is consistently stated, despite the fact that there are parts that may not be memory for the detailed portions of the instant high-tech art works upon the instant surgery, and that the credibility is high due to any inconsistency between the two people’s statements.

I would like to say.

In that sense, according to N and T’s statement, the victim entrusted the sale of the instant solid works to the Defendant, who is the principal agent operating the “E”, and the Defendant, who was his fraud, sold the said solid works to N (the N had, at the time, attempted the Defendant to do work in the Defendant’s ditch).

② In addition, N sold the above high-tech art products, and then delivered the fact of sales and sales proceeds to the defendant via his spouse.