절도
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the mistake or misapprehension of legal principle) of the facts charged in this case is all things owned by the defendant, not jointly owned by the victim, but solely owned by the victim.
Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
2. 1) First of all, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below as to whether the defendant and the victim were in a partnership relationship, the defendant and the victim's investigative agency statements, etc., and the evidence duly admitted and examined in the court below and the court below, the defendant and the victim bear the side material and field expenses for the purpose of joint construction of civil engineering structures, and the defendant have sufficiently recognized the fact that there was a partnership relationship between the defendant and the victim's provision of other side material, the defendant and the defense counsel's assertion that they did not in a partnership relationship is not accepted. 2)
According to the above evidence, not only the defendant but also the victim brought about subsidiary materials necessary for the above construction work at the construction site. The defendant and the victim suffered additional subsidiary materials due to lack of subsidiary materials used by the defendant and the victim while performing the above construction work, the victim's funds were invested in purchasing additional subsidiary materials. As above, the defendant and the victim mixed with subsidiary materials at the construction site as mentioned above at the construction site, and there was no discussion on the specific method of settlement of subsidiary materials remaining at the construction site after the suspension of the business relationship. The fact that the defendant brought about the subsidiary materials mentioned in the facts charged without the victim's consent, and the victim raised objection against the defendant, and the defendant returned some of the subsidiary materials taken by the defendant to the victim.
In light of the above facts of recognition, the above facts are examined.