The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact-finding, the Defendant was approved by J, the representative of the victim G, to recover the instant deposit and use it for expenses, and it was found that the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentence (1.5 million won by fine) imposed on the Defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the court below's decision on the assertion of mistake of facts and evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below and the trial court. ① The court below consistently stated that the defendant did not consent to the recovery of the deposit of this case from the police to the trial court, and the victim G also stated that the police did not allow the defendant to recover the deposit of this case, and ② the record of the contents of the conversation between J and the defendant also correspond to the above statement of the court's decision that the defendant did not consent to the recovery of the deposit of this case without the defendant's consent. The defendant recorded the contents of the conversation with the defendant's intent to file a complaint without the defendant's consent, so the above record is inadmissible. However, the recording of the conversation without the other party's consent is not subject to the application of Article 14 of the Protection of Communications Secrets Act which provides for prohibition of infringement of others' conversation, while the defendant's statement in the court below is recognized as being consistent with the contents of the recording and the statement made by the above person as well as the recorded statement.