The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal can only be recognized that the Defendants got out of the damaged goods, and it was true that Defendant B lent money to H or paid food materials to H in relation to the management of the restaurant, but since there was no transfer of ownership or acquisition of management right from H or the victim, goods held by the Defendants are deemed as victims, and therefore, the court below acquitted the Defendants, despite the fact that the Defendants could have recognized the intent of illegal acquisition.

2. The Defendants acknowledged the fact that the court below found that the Defendant A had the meat and the field, and Defendant B’s wife and Defendant B had only one bottle of drinking water in the Pest. However, according to the records, Defendant B had a claim of KRW 300 million against the LAWnB, which is the operating entity of the instant restaurant, and based on this, attached the claim and collection order against the LAWnB’s various claims, and attached corporeal movables of the instant restaurant, ② Defendant B, who was the actual business entity of the instant restaurant, attached corporeal movables of the instant restaurant, agreed with the Defendant B on the condition that the management right of the instant restaurant was entrusted to the Defendant B until he paid the debt of KRW 300 million, ③ Defendant B did not actually pay the food materials of the instant restaurant to Defendant B, and Defendant B purchased the instant restaurant on the 13rd day of the instant restaurant, and Defendant B did not actually pay the 1’s operating funds to Defendant B’s employees, etc.