Nevertheless, since the court below acquitted the charged facts of this case, it erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. The facts charged in this case and the judgment of the court below

A. On July 5, 2011, the Defendant was transferred KRW 26,50,00 to the Agricultural Cooperative account under the name of the Defendant, as a consolation money, in order to marry the victim to the victim at the home of the victim E, Jinju-si 406, Jinari-si, the Defendant, in order to marry to the victim with the victim at the home of the victim E, the Defendant must proceed to divorce with F, who is currently the Defendant’s wife’s wife, and in order to divorce with F, the Defendant was transferred to F.

Although the Defendant: (a) ordered F to pay consolation money to F for a lump sum and demanded divorce; (b) however, if F did not bring a divorce to the contrary, the Defendant embezzled KRW 26,50,000 for personal purposes, such as Defendant’s living expenses, card price, etc., while keeping the said money in custody for the victim, around July 5, 2011, the Defendant embezzled KRW 6,448,841 as the Defendant’s new card price.

B. The judgment of the court of the court below is the materials for divorce at the time when the defendant received the instant money from the victim, and the defendant used the said money for other purposes, such as living expenses, in addition to the materials for divorce, but the following circumstances recognized by the records of this case, i.e., where the defendant intends to marry with the victim, he/she must proceed to divorce with his/her spouse and give the materials for divorce