The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the above punishment shall be imposed for two years from the date of the final judgment.

1. The summary of the facts charged in this case is that the Defendant was a person who is substantially in charge of the lease management of the 6th floor building (E building) on the ground D, Daegu-gu, Daegu-gu, the name of wife C, and the victim F agreed that the Defendant would have a right to lease on a deposit basis with the victim as to the above 601, and that the Defendant would have a right to lease on a deposit basis with the victim.

On April 6, 2012, the Defendant received from G real estate brokers G a certificate of lease on a deposit basis, a copy of lease contract, a certified copy of resident registration in the name of the victim, and a document bags related to the establishment of chonsegwon containing a letter of delegation, from the real estate broker G, who had worked in his/her office in the 1st floor lease office of the building in Daegu-gu, Incheon-gu.

However, the Defendant continued the establishment of the right to lease on a deposit basis agreed with the victim, and the victim returned the documents related to the establishment of the right to lease on a deposit basis. However, the Defendant did not return the documents related to the establishment of the right to lease on a deposit basis, and did not return the documents related to the establishment of the right to lease on a deposit basis.

2. The lower court found the Defendant not guilty on the ground that the Defendant could have lost the documents received from the victim in light of the fact that not only H but also those related to the leased business office appear to have been rarely engaged in the leased business, and that the Defendant merely placed the bags containing the documents on G’s book, but did not directly manage them.

3. The summary of the grounds for appeal is consistent with the Defendant’s statement, in light of the purport that the Defendant denied the establishment of chonsegwon even after receiving documents related to chonsegwon from the victim, and that there was no document received, not that the Defendant was lost after receiving a request for return from the victim.