2. Determination

A. A. An ex officio prosecutor shall reach the judgment of the court below, and shall retain the facts charged as to embezzlement, which was found not guilty at the court below, as follows 2:

C. (1) The facts charged as to the breach of trust as stated in Paragraph (1) are added in the conjunctive application of the applicable law, and the application for amendment to the indictment was filed by adding “Article 355(2) of the Criminal Act” to “Article 355(2) of the Criminal Act,” and the subject of the judgment was added by this court.

In the following, the grounds for appeal against the primary facts charged by the prosecutor and the ancillary facts added in the trial of the party are examined in order.

B. In light of the facts acknowledged by the lower court as to the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine as to the primary facts charged, and the following circumstances revealed therefrom, it cannot be readily concluded that the Defendant’s payment of KRW 60 million from the injured party should be made out of the purchase price of the access road site in concluding a delegation contract with the injured party on the purchase of the access road site for the instant forest land.

Therefore, the evidence presented by the prosecutor alone is in a position to preserve the above money for the victim or there is a criminal intent to commit any embezzlement.

As can not be seen, the judgment of the court below that acquitted the primary facts charged is justified, and it is sufficiently acceptable to this purport.