2. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court, it is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant disposed of the instant container with the knowledge that the instant container was owned by the victim.

G was actually engaged in representative duties, such as the purchase of scrap metal, in D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “company”), and G was also engaged in using the instant container in connection with the company’s business. Accordingly, even if the company needed additional containers or there was no economic burden to live therein, as long as G or the victim did not clearly hear the details of the purchase of containers, there is room to think that G was a container on behalf of the company.

B. The victim is memorying that the instant container was owned by G, but it was not memoryed that the victim talked about the Defendant, and G was also trying to talk about the container from the victim, and there seems to be no person explicitly said that the instant container was owned by the victim.

C. At the time of the instant container being transported to the company, the Defendant appears to have never existed at the site, and the accounting staff H at the time stated that G was called that G would pay transportation expenses to the company as required by the company, as G was called by telephone.

Since H, who is a accounting employee, retired without receiving wages from the company, it is particularly favorable to the defendant who is the representative of the company.