The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. In light of the overall circumstances of the grounds for appeal, the defendant should be deemed to have known that the container as stated in the facts charged of this case (hereinafter "the container of this case") was owned by the victim, and even if the defendant knew that G purchased the container of this case with personal money as alleged by the defendant, it should be deemed that the defendant was aware that the container of this case was not owned by D (hereinafter "D") but owned by another person, and the judgment of the court below acquitted the defendant of the facts charged of this case, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination:

A. On February 19, 2013, the Defendant stolen the instant facts charged by receiving KRW 1.5 million from F, the amount equivalent to KRW 1.5 million at the market price of the instant container No. 1,500,000 owned by the victim E, from the Gangseo-gu Busan Metropolitan City D head office.

B. The lower court determined based on the evidence of the lower court, that: (a) G was actually engaged in representative duties, such as purchase of scrap metal in D; and (b) G was also engaged in using the instant container in relation to D’s business; (c) even if D did not require additional containers or had no economic capacity to purchase the instant container, as long as G or the victim did not explicitly hear the developments leading up to the purchase of the instant container; (b) G was likely to have been aware that the instant container was sold for D; (c) the victim talked with G for that purpose; but (d) the victim did not memory that the instant container was owned by the Defendant; and (d) G was not able to talk with the Defendant about the instant container from the victim.