The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The decision of the court below which acquitted the defendant of the facts charged of this case, despite the fact that ownership of the instant steel bars in violation of the agreement is owned by the victim E, and the defendant taken the instant steel bars out to another construction site in violation of the agreement, is recognized as illegal acquisition intention.

2. The lower court determined that: (a) if the Defendant offsets against the construction price that the Defendant shall pay to the victim, there is room to regard the instant steel bars as owned by the Defendant; (b) the victim deducts the Defendant from the construction price that the Defendant shall pay twice; (c) the construction price that the Defendant paid to the Defendant until July 201, when the Defendant transferred the instant steel bars, appears to be somewhat insufficient compared to the construction cost rate up to the time; (d) the construction price that the Defendant deducted by the victim and the above construction price would correspond to the construction cost rate; (e) there is a high possibility that the Defendant was planning to remain in force under the instant construction contract; (e) when considering the general terms of the subcontract agreement, the Defendant did not acquire the ownership of the steel bars supplied by the Defendant; and (v) the Defendant and the victim did not receive the construction price equivalent to the price of the steel bars, and it is difficult to conclude that the construction price was not paid by the Defendant after two construction contracts were concluded and the Defendant did not clearly own the construction price at the time of suspension.