A. The court below acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged in this case on the ground that it is difficult to readily conclude that the ownership of the punishment of this case was attributed to the victim because the evidence submitted by the prosecutor with respect to 56 punishments, which are the objects of the larceny of this case (hereinafter “the punishment of this case”), alone, was concluded with the Defendant and the victim by impliedly entering into a marina sales contract. In full view of the following circumstances, it is difficult to believe that the Defendant’s change in the punishment of this case is his own possession, and rather, it is reasonable to deem that the ownership of the punishment of this case was attributed to the victim by the conclusion of the marina sales contract as to the punishment of this case implicitly between

B. In other words, the Defendant brought about the instant punishment in the double-wing place operated by the Defendant with the consent of the victim. However, if the Defendant’s assertion is based on the foregoing, it is apparent that the instant punishment would be mixed with that of the seeds different from those of the Defendant at the double-wing place (the Defendant and the victim owned respectively) so there was no permission from the victim to request such a request by the Defendant. As to the KRW 7 million delivered from the victim, the Defendant asserted that the Defendant was the money in the name of the change in the value produced from the instant double-wing place owned by the Defendant. However, as soon as the Defendant brought about the double-wing place of the victim, the Defendant and his father, who was an employee, replaced the double-wing place of the victim, and had the Defendant and his father, who were the employees, in the middle of the double-wing place of the victim, injected the spugbling place of the punishment without distinction from the (victim’s) throughout the pre-existing management place, and if so, it should be deemed that the Defendant’s money was not given as alleged.