업무상횡령
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, although the defendant could have sufficiently recognized the fact that he embezzled by arbitrarily using the funds of the Promotion Committee for the Establishment of Housing Redevelopment Cooperatives, the court below acquitted the defendant of the facts charged of this case. The judgment of the court below is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts, which affected the conclusion
2. The burden of proof for the criminal facts prosecuted in a criminal trial for judgment is to be borne by a public prosecutor, and the conviction is to be based on evidence with probative value that makes a judge feel true beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, if there is no such evidence, the suspicion of guilt is between the defendant, even if there is no such evidence.
Even if there is no choice but to judge the interests of the defendant.
In light of the records and records, the court below's determination of not guilty of all the charges against the defendant on the ground that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize the facts charged against the defendant is proper, and there is no error of law of misunderstanding of facts as pointed out in the grounds for appeal. Thus, the prosecutor's assertion is without merit.
3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.