2. The Defendant’s assertion that the instant product, as indicated in the facts charged, is inconsistent with the possession of the Defendant’s wife at the time of the instant product, but the Defendant’s assertion that the instant product was owned by E, and that the owner’s permission to take the instant product was obtained, and thus, the Defendant did not constitute larceny.

3. Determination

A. 1) First, as to whether the instant product is jointly owned by three persons, such as D, E, and F as indicated in the facts charged, there is no evidence to acknowledge it (for the said three persons, there is no party asserting that the instant product is jointly owned by three persons).

(2) Rather, the following circumstances acknowledged in the record, namely, ① products of Sland, such as the instant products, are sold in multi-level format and ordered by assistant multi-level salesmen to high-level sellers. The instant products are products that D paid money to E for its high-level sales causes (three pages of the examination record of the witness examination of D, 4, 5, and F), ② A orders for the instant products to A high-level sales causes even before the instant products were delivered to D (five pages of the examination record of D), ③ E was first delivered to D after the receipt of the products (five pages of the examination record of the witness examination of D), and ③ E was not delivered to D, but delivered the products received to D, divided into plastic paper into a plastic paper so that they can take in once.