2. The court below held that the victim's statement to the effect that the court below legitimately adopted and investigated the following circumstances, namely, ① does not state the agreed matters as stated in the facts charged, and ② states that the defendants agreed to transfer the above coffee shop's equipment, the collection and inventory goods to the victim on the date of the contract, although they did not state in the contract, and ② states that the defendants agreed to transfer the ownership of the above coffee shop's equipment, inventory and inventory to the victim, is contrary to the general transaction practices, and the above oral agreement is insufficient to recognize the existence of the above oral agreement. ③ The prosecutor asserts that the defendants had acknowledged the existence of the above oral agreement in the investigation process, but the defendants argued that the above oral agreement was made to transfer the ownership of the above coffee shop's equipment, the collection and inventory goods to the victim, and further, the defendants agreed to transfer

In light of the fact that the Defendants did not seem to have been recognized, the Defendants held the ownership of the above goods at the time of release of each of the instant goods.

It is insufficient to recognize that the defendants are in the custody of the above goods, and therefore, the facts charged in this case constitute a case where there is no proof of crime, and sentenced the defendants not guilty.

Examining the above judgment of the court below in comparison with the records, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable.