2. The lower court, on the grounds indicated in its reasoning, found the Defendant not guilty on the ground that it is difficult to readily conclude that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone had the intent to commit the crime of embezzlement or obtain illegal acquisition, and that there is no other evidence to acknowledge this, on the grounds that the instant facts charged constituted a case without proof

In light of the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below, the court below's determination of not guilty of the facts charged in this case is just and acceptable, and it cannot be deemed that there was an error affecting the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts as alleged by the prosecutor.

The prosecutor's assertion is not accepted.

3. As such, the prosecutor’s appeal is without merit and is dismissed pursuant to Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. Since it is obvious that the “15%” of the 3th written judgment of the court below is a 10% clerical error, it is so decided to correct ex officio pursuant to Article 25 of the Regulations on Criminal Procedure. It is so decided as per Disposition.