업무상횡령등
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, including the summary of the grounds for appeal Nos. B and L’s statements, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts of the judgment below which acquitted each of the charges of this case, even though the defendant received KRW 20 million from B as a solicitation of public officials, and recognized the fact that he consumed and embezzled the total amount of KRW 54 million for the victim C Co., Ltd. while he was kept for the victim C.
2. Determination
A. The court below found that the following circumstances acknowledged based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the defendant as follows, namely, this part of the facts charged is that the defendant was paid a total of KRW 20 million from B under the pretext that he would want to divide land D (hereinafter “instant land”) located in the Newannam-gun (hereinafter “instant land”) through a public official of the Newannam-gun Office around January 2012, and it cannot be said that it was impossible to divide the instant land, even if 14 land was allowed during the first half of the year 2012, including this case’s land, excluding this case’s land, the defendant would have been holding a claim against B (B) from the Defendant at the time of receiving money from B, and that the above loan amount of KRW 10,000,000 from KRW 2,000,000,0000,0000,0000,0000 from KRW 1,70,000,0000.