Accordingly, the defendant stolen the victim's property.

2. Determination

A. According to the record, in light of the fact that the victim replaced the beer and the beer punishment brought by the defendant (such replacement may not be easy to distinguish between the defendant and the victim), the victim's expense, which refers to the punishment at the victim's expense, and that the defendant was the victim's beer and was not sealed separately from the victim's beer, there is a strong doubt as to whether the defendant arbitrarily brought the beer, even though he sold the beer to the victim, even though he sold it implicitly to the victim.

B. However, acknowledged by the record, ① the Defendant brought about 42 punishments around June 2017, while working in the victim’s both clubs from June 2016 to June 2017, and the victim purchased booms from the Defendant on June 2017.

One of the arguments is that there is no direct evidence, such as a contract for the punishment and witness, except for the victim's statement (the victim is also the defendant at the time of the prosecutor's investigation, and how 42 the defendant should be punished at the time of the prosecutor's investigation. In this case, I think that the defendant was to purchase the punishment from the defendant, and therefore, the defendant was replaced. Even according to the victim's statement, a specific sales contract was concluded between the defendant and the victim with regard to the punishment.

It is difficult to see the victim in the course of the prosecutor's investigation, and it is difficult to see the victim in the course of the prosecutor's investigation, and the victim will calculate the above punishment amount according to the market price, purchase it, and produce it.