Even if it does not affect the crime of embezzlement, the court below found the defendant not guilty despite the fact that the defendant embezzled the money recorded in the facts charged, there is an error of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles.

2. Determination:

A. The lower court rejected the Defendant’s return of KRW 4,197,00,00, the remaining difference as indicated in the facts charged, solely on the ground that the Defendant did not immediately deposit the money received from the Defendant’s account into the victim’s company, in full view of the details entered in the provisional deposit account and the result of the check tracking that was withdrawn from the Defendant’s account, and the sum that was paid from the Defendant’s account to the Defendant’s account exceeds KRW 4,1970,000,000,000

In addition, it is difficult to regard it as embezzlement or embezzlement, and it is difficult to conclude that the defendant had an intention to obtain illegal acquisition.

B. Examining the above judgment of the court below in comparison with the records, the judgment of the court below is just and there is no error of law by misunderstanding facts against the rules of evidence or by misunderstanding the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

The prosecutor asserts that the claim for provisional deposit was derived from the funds of the victim, so it cannot be recognized as the claim for provisional deposit. However, according to the records, if the defendant submitted the details of the claim paid by the defendant for the victim company to the accounting officer of the victim company with evidentiary documents attached, the accounting officer obtains approval from X for the president of the victim company, and the defendant's provisional deposit.