The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the Defendant was entitled to dispose of five points of large-scale rooftop works as indicated in the lower judgment (hereinafter “instant rooftop works”) as co-owners.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged that the Defendant, by misunderstanding the facts, committed as if he were the owner without any authority with respect to the instant rooftop works, and by deceiving the victim to acquire money.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (4 months of imprisonment and 1 year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the original court, the Defendant, X, and Y concluded a sales contract to purchase the instant rooftop work from the Z to resell them, and to purchase them at KRW 350 million from the Z around October 20, 2015 (hereinafter “the instant sales contract”). According to the above sales contract, the Defendant paid KRW 30 million to the Z on the date of the contract, and transferred the instant rooftop work to the U.S. factory located at the end of October 2015, the Defendant, as indicated in the facts charged, was entitled to receive KRW 30 million or KRW 350 million from the Z to the time of the contract, and the Defendant received property gains from the Z or acquired property gains from the Z during the period of KRW 15 million from the Z to the time of the sale of the said work under the name of the 30 million or KRW 160 million from the 15th of June 16, 2015.

D. On January 2016, 2016, the victim’s prosecutorial statement (Evidence No. 5No. 275 of the evidence record) to the effect that around X and Y claimed the victim’s share of 60% of the instant rooftop work, and the Defendant sold the instant rooftop work.

(2).