업무상배임
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal of this case is that the machinery and apparatus of this case was kept inside the factory where the compact is installed, and in order to enter the factory inside the factory, a door where the correction apparatus was installed must be opened. The employees of this case around the time of this case did not work in the factory, and there was no damage in the correction apparatus, and when considering the time when the electricity was presumed to have been cut down and operated in the factory, the defendant did not inform the creditors of the fact that the compact does not work in the factory, but if he did not inform the creditors of the fact that the compact does not work, it is difficult for the creditors to think of the possibility that the creditors would have cut the machinery and apparatus of this case, and the defendant did not take any measures, such as reporting theft, even though he knew that the machinery and apparatus of this case was extinguished, in light of the financial situation of the defendant at the time, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts of this case without considering comprehensive and organic evidence, and thereby, acquitted the facts of this case.
2. We examine the evidence of this case in detail in light of the records, and examine the possibility that the above machinery and apparatus could have been removed through another person who kept and managed the keys other than the defendant in the instant case where there is no evidence to deem that the complainant was only the defendant, from February 20, 2015 to June 24, 2015, the complainant had visited the factory with the lessor and found that the machinery and apparatus of this case were inside the factory.