The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding the facts) is as follows: (a) the Defendant and the victim company entrusted the breeding of tensions by supplying the Defendant with necessary feed while supplying tensions; (b) the Defendant and the victim company agreed that the eggs disturbing the tensions are owned by the victim company; (c) the victim company, as the owner of the flat, was entitled to apply for the flat examination to the flat Association, an incorporated association, for the flat examination; and (d) the Defendant received insurance money upon request from the victim company for the flat examination to receive compensation; and (c) the main purpose of the contract entered into between the Defendant and the victim company is that the victim company supplied the flat with the flat and raised by the Defendant and returned the flat and flat to the victim company, the above contract constitutes a full-time contract under the Civil Act; and (d) the ownership of the flat and flat with the flat shall be paid to the victim company that is the owner of the flat.

2. The following circumstances acknowledged by the court below based on the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below, namely, ① the Defendant and the Victim Company agreed that the Defendant and the Victim Company shall own the Defendant Company’s cryption.

The grounds for assertion are deemed to have been in accordance with Article 16(2) of the “Contract for the Supply of Original Entrusted Breeding and Disturbing Goods” (Evidence No. 37 pages). However, the Defendant and the Victim Company do not conclude a contract in writing according to the above contract, but rather enter into an oral contract and the above contents.