Nevertheless, the first instance court rendered a not-guilty verdict on the facts charged of this case, and the first instance court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles.

2. Determination:

A. The relevant legal doctrine is a crime established when a person who keeps another’s property embezzleds such property. The embezzlement act as a requirement for embezzlement refers to all the acts of realizing an intent to acquire illegal property, and the crime of embezzlement is established when there is an objective act that can be perceived from the outside.

Here, the prosecutor must prove that there was an act of embezzlement as an act of realizing an intent to acquire unlawful acquisition. Such proof is based on strict evidence with probative value that leads to a judge to have no reasonable doubt. If there is no such evidence, even if there is suspicion of guilt against the defendant, the interest of the defendant should be determined even if there is no such evidence (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Do7371, Sept. 27, 2012). (B) The first instance court, through the relevant part of the judgment 2-5, made the Defendant arbitrarily disposed of and embezzled products, such as cosmetics, as stated in the facts charged, by stating the reasons therefor in detail.

It is insufficient to view it, and there is no other evidence to recognize it.

In light of the records, a thorough examination of the evidence of this case is consistent with the first instance court's determination of not guilty of the facts charged of this case based on the determination of evidence, and in light of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence, H and AD's appellate court.