All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A 1) In fact-finding or misunderstanding of legal principles, Defendant F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter in the name of each company, “stock company” is omitted.

G and H (hereinafter “victim”) of the instant construction

(2) Defendant A knew that the instant construction material was owned by F due to the failure to notify the owner of the instant construction material, and Defendant A knew that the instant construction material was owned by F. After the construction contract was destroyed, Defendant A requested F to recover the materials and equipment. However, Defendant A did not answer to the request. In order to transfer the instant construction material to another place, there was a lot of expenses in order to store the instant construction material, and even if the victim company was returned it, the value significantly drops compared to the purchase price. As such, Defendant A used the instant construction material under the intention to return the value at the market price of the instant construction material later. This was the most reasonable choice for the benefit of the owner of the instant construction material, and thus, Defendant A did not have an intent to obtain unlawful acquisition. (2) The lower court’s punishment (a fine of KRW 5 million) of the unreasonable sentencing

B. Defendant B (1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles) The victim company is merely a person awarded a subcontract for the instant construction work without permission, and there is no contractual relationship with the Defendants, and Defendant B merely occupied the instant construction site under a contract with Defendant A. As such, there is no consignment relationship as to the storage of the instant construction materials.

In addition, since the victim company entered into a subcontract without permission and neglected the construction materials of this case to obtain unjust benefits, it is not necessary to protect the status of the custody of the construction materials of this case in criminal law.

Therefore, Defendant B cannot be deemed as a custodian of the instant construction materials.

B. Defendant B’s use of the construction materials of this case after hearing that Defendant A would have settled with the owner of the construction materials of this case. As such, Defendant B used the construction materials of this case, the acquisition of unlawful profits.