After arranging the relationship with the victim around December 31, 2017, the defendant, around 10:30 on February 27, 2018, he loaded 2,000 won in weight equipment without the victim's consent.

As a result, the Defendant stolen two sprinklers, which are combined objects of the Defendant and the victim.

2. The following circumstances revealed by the records of the judgment, i.e., the victim alleged that he purchased the machinery of this case at first, that there was no contract for the transfer of ownership or contribution of the machinery of this case, that one of the trade partners sold the machinery of this case to the victim and it is difficult to regard it as union property. It is not natural to regard only the machinery of this case as union property, and that E does not know about the transfer of ownership of the machinery of this case. If the defendant contributed to the union, it is not known that one of the partnership owners knew that E would not have known it. If he contributed to the union, E could not sell the machinery of this case at the time of the agreement for the operation of the business, it is difficult to see that the defendant contributed to the union. In light of the above circumstances, it is difficult to see that the defendant contributed to the union.

Even if the Defendant contributed the instant machinery to a cooperative, according to the records, the Defendant transferred it to F on December 22, 2016, to secure monetary liabilities of the instant machinery, and delivered it by means of possession revision, and the Defendant agreed to continue to occupy it. Accordingly, the instant machinery is at least against the victim and E.