The Defendant initially purchased the instant large wave from E, and the victim and H invested the remainder due to the shortage of the balance.

Therefore, a partnership agreement was concluded between the defendant, the victim, and the H to jointly harvest and sell the instant wave and distribute the proceeds derived therefrom.

In the future, there was a dispute over the settlement of the price between the defendant, the victim, and the H, and the Dong business contract was reversed.

In light of the above circumstances, the Defendant: (a) was deemed to have been a sole owner of the instant large frequency; (b) so, the Defendant attempted to harvest the instant large frequency; (c) thus, the lower court, which found the Defendant guilty of having no intention of larceny, erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine or misunderstanding the fact.

Judgment

Since the goods provided to the business entity belongs to the joint possession of the partners as long as the business relationship is not liquidated, the reason why the goods are originally owned by the defendant or provided by the defendant in another place is not sufficient to create an object of larceny.

(2) In full view of the following circumstances revealed from the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the Defendant’s assertion is without merit. In so doing, the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

Even if the first purchaser of the exchange of this case is the defendant, since the strike of this case is jointly possessed by the defendant, the victim, and the H under a partnership agreement concluded between the defendant, the victim, and the H, it constitutes an object of larceny.

Since there was no specific liquidation procedure between the defendant, the victim, and H even if the contract was destroyed later, the strike in this case still belongs to the co-ownership of the defendant, the victim, and the H.

Furthermore, the victim settled the purchase price to the defendant.