The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (based on factual errors and misapprehension of legal principles) is that the instant machine was used in a partnership relationship between the Defendant, the victim, and the E as a result of the Defendant’s contribution, and it is reasonable to deem it as a combination of property. Even if F is not a combination of property, even if it is owned by F, it is reasonable to deem it as a combination of property. Therefore, the Defendant’s

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine and thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the instant facts charged was as follows: (a) from around April 1, 2017 to the victim B and on April 1, 2017, the Defendant decided to produce and sell mobile phone liquid films, etc. in Ansan-si C Co., Ltd., Ltd. located in Ansan-si.

After arranging the relationship with the victim around December 31, 2017, the defendant, around 10:30 on February 27, 2018, he loaded 2,000 won in weight equipment without the victim's consent.

As a result, the Defendant stolen two sprinklers, which are combined objects of the Defendant and the victim.

B. In light of the following circumstances, the lower court rendered a not guilty verdict on the instant facts charged on the ground that the instant machinery does not constitute the joint goods of the union members, including the victim.

1. ① The victim initially asserted that he purchased the instant machine, ② there is no agreement on the transfer of ownership or contribution of the instant machine, ③ one of the partners E sells the machinery owned to an individual, and it is difficult to see it as union property. It is natural to see only the instant machine as union property, ④ E does not know about the transfer of ownership of the instant machine.