The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Since the Defendant paid the construction cost, including the cost of materials, to a subcontractor more than a studio higher level, it cannot be deemed that a sub-subcontract used the materials stored at the site, and there was no intention to larceny.

B. The sentence (one million won of fine) imposed by the court below on the defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, i.e., ① at the time when the Defendant ordered the Defendant to use each of the construction materials of this case to the R site warden, the I and the victims did not settle the accounts of the construction cost; ② at the time of the suspension of the instant construction work, the Defendant subcontracted part of the instant construction work to the victims, and appears to have known that I did not pay the subcontract price; ③ the Defendant and I did not settle the instant construction work; and ③ the Defendant and I did not pay the construction cost to I, it cannot be deemed that the construction materials owned by the victims were reverted to the Defendant on the part of the Defendant.

Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the defendant who arbitrarily used the construction materials of the victims had the intention of larceny and illegal acquisition.

B. The following circumstances, which the court below properly explained, are acknowledged by the above evidence, i.e., ① the ownership of the unbuilt site materials is not immediately attributable to the contractor because the contractor paid the contractor the construction cost exceeding the honorable height, and ② the Defendant did not know about the ownership of the construction materials at the site.