The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal reveals that the Defendant did not transfer the instant health club facilities (hereinafter “instant facilities”) to the victim, and thus owned the instant facilities independently as well as the Defendant’s possession. Although the Defendant was notified that he would dispose of the instant facilities upon receiving an order to transfer real estate through an auction of the building where the instant health club was located, the victim did not raise any objection, and thus the Defendant gave implied consent to the disposition, and even if the Defendant did not have any intention to larceny, the lower court found the Defendant guilty by misapprehending the legal doctrine, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

2. The following circumstances acknowledged in accordance with the evidence duly admitted and adopted in the lower court’s judgment: (i) the Defendant: (a) when the monthly rent unpaid deposits were fully deducted; (b) the Defendant transferred all the instant health clubs and facilities to the building owner E and the victims, who are its children, as of January 12, 201, while operating the instant health clubs; and (c) when the Defendant entered into a contract to find a person operating the instant health clubs, he/she did not inform the victim of the fact that he/she was informed of the fact that he/she received an order to deliver the instant building and the disposition of the instant facilities; (b) the Defendant did not inform the victim of the fact that he/she was not aware of the fact that he/she received an order to transfer the instant health clubs; and (c) the Defendant did not fully agree with the Defendant’s disposal of the instant facilities.

In full view of the circumstances, such as the fact that it is difficult to believe that the victim did not respond to or did not respond to any particular situation, the victim is the victim.