The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the occupational embezzlement, in full view of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the defendant, as the representative director of the victim company D (hereinafter “victim company”), voluntarily leased the factory against the victim company’s will, spent the sum of KRW 9.1 million in the passbook of the victim company in the name of contract deposit and brokerage commission, and used the above factory individually. As such, it is recognized that the defendant embezzled the amount of KRW 9.1 million in the victim company’s money as stated in this part of the facts charged, with the intent of unlawful acquisition.

B. As to attempted occupational breach of trust, in full view of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the defendant, as the representative director of the victim company, attempted to apply for trademark registration of "L" under the name of the defendant, although the defendant, as the representative director of the victim company, has a duty to register and keep tangible and intangible rights, which were completed development in light of the principle of good faith, as the victim company's name, and therefore, the defendant attempted to acquire profits equivalent to the above trademark value as the intent of unlawful acquisition, such as this part of the facts charged.

C. However, since the court below acquitted all the facts charged of this case on the ground that there was no proof of crime, it erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

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

A. (i) The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is the person who served as the representative director from May 16, 201 to April 25, 2012 at the victim company in C when industrialization.

The defendant, while managing the Korean Bank E account in the name of the victim company for the victim company, found on March 2012 that the victim company director F and G want to dismiss the defendant from the office of representative director, and the victim company.