The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

Provided, That the above punishment shall be imposed for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual error and misunderstanding of legal principles) (hereinafter “B”) concluded a temporary re-lease agreement with the victim D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “victim”) and leased temporary materials at the so-called G (hereinafter “instant site”).

Since the Defendant leased temporary materials from the victim, the Defendant did not return the leased temporary materials despite the obligation to use and return the temporary materials for the specified purpose in accordance with the principle of good faith.

The lower court deemed that the instant lease agreement has the nature of the consumption contract and the ownership of the instant temporary material is transferred to the Defendant, but it cannot be deemed that the ownership of the temporary material is transferred to the Defendant on the ground that the ownership of the temporary material is returned to the Defendant because it is difficult to divide the temporary material as leased.

The lower court acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case. In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor ex officio (revision of indictment) the Prosecutor applied for changes in the indictment as stated in the facts charged in the lower part of acquittal, and the subject of the judgment was changed by this court’s permission.

The judgment of the court below should be reversed due to the above reasons for reversal of authority, but the prosecutor's assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of the court below.

3. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated, the lower court’s determination is difficult to readily conclude that the Defendant was in a position to retain the victim’s property, and the Defendant.