The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts 1) D Co., Ltd. operated by the Defendant (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd.”)

2) The injured party F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “victim F Co., Ltd.”)

(2) At the time of receiving parts from the Defendant, the Defendant had the intent or ability to manufacture and deliver the relevant part as a black box. In other words, the Defendant Company is the Defendant Company H (hereinafter “H”).

(2) The injured party company was a company that runs the retail business of automobile goods, and the Defendant Company was supplied with black boxes by H, and the Defendant Company was a subordinate company of H. The Defendant Company was holding a claim of KRW 00 million against H. Thus, when the injured party pays to H, the Defendant Company was able to recover the claim from H and produce a black box. 2) The Defendant considered the parts provided by the injured party as owned by H.

The Defendant entered into a contract with H and did not have any direct transaction relationship with the victim company, and the said parts were also known to have been supplied for the account of H.

3) The value of the parts that the Defendant received from the victim is nothing more than KRW 71 million. However, in a state where the Defendant, by misapprehending the legal doctrine, possesses the parts provided for H’s account as a security, under which he/she owns an attempted claim of KRW 71 million against H, constitutes a justifiable act. (c) The lower court’s punishment against the Defendant of unfair sentencing (a fine of KRW 5 million is too unreasonable.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. 1) Determination of the assertion of mistake of facts is made as to the assertion of deception and intention, and even in the judgment of the court below, the defendant judged that the parts recorded in the facts constituting the crime in the judgment of the court below (hereinafter “instant parts”) are H’s ownership, and the defendant argued that he/she had the intention or ability to produce and deliver the black boxes.

As to this, the lower court acknowledged based on the evidence duly admitted and investigated, i.e., the following circumstances.