Judgment

1. The victim of the defense counsel’s defense counsel’s defense counsel’s defense counsel’s defense counsel’s defense counsel purchased the instant construction materials from F, a construction business operator, on February 20, 2015

One of the arguments is not true.

The Defendant was aware of F as the genuine owner of the instant construction materials, and used F with F’s permission for use on March 9, 2015, on the date of the instant case, there was no intention to commit larceny or to acquire illegal gains.

2. Determination

A. According to the records, the F merely stated that “F shall calculate and write the instant construction material” in the telephone conversations with the Defendant before February 20, 2015, and on March 9, 2015, the telephone machine broken down from the Defendant or the Defendant did not call from the wind on February 20, 2015 to the point that the ownership of the instant construction material appears to have been exceeded (F, G’s respective statutory statements, the page 70 pages of investigation records), and F merely stated that “F shall calculate and write the instant construction material” before February 20, 2015.

It is recognized that the circumstances, such as the statement to the effect that “,” were made.

B. However, in light of the health stand, evidence Nos. 1 and 2 submitted by the Defendant, and evidence submitted by the Defendant on November 3, 2016, as to whether the Defendant was permitted by F to use the instant construction material, the F still remains the telephone call details sent to the Defendant on February 24, 2015, which was after February 20, 2015, on which the instant construction material was purchased, and F, on March 9, 2015, on three occasions (hereinafter “F”).