The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual error, the misapprehension of the legal principle) that the defendant, who has completed his term of office, denies the return of the goods related to the management of the village association funds because he is likely to be aware of the irregularities, is recognized as an unlawful acquisition intention.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the charged facts of this case is erroneous in misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles.

2. Determination

A. The lower court rendered a judgment on the following grounds that it is difficult to view that the instant facts charged were proven without any reasonable doubt by the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone. The lower court acquitted the Defendant.

(1) For the establishment of embezzlement of the relevant legal doctrine, a person who keeps another’s property shall either embezzled or refuse to return the property with the intent of unlawful acquisition (Articles 356 and 355(1) of the Criminal Act). Here, “an intention of unlawful acquisition” refers to an intention of disposal, in fact or by law, of another person’s property, in violation of his/her occupational duty for the purpose of pursuing his/her own interest or a third party’s interest, where the person who keeps another’s property owns it.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2001Do5439 Decided February 5, 2002, etc.). “Refusal to return” in embezzlement refers to an act of expressing intent to exclude the owner’s right against the custodian’s goods. As such, the crime of embezzlement is not established solely on the fact that the custodian of another’s property simply refuses to return, and the fact that the custodian of another’s property refuses to return by taking account of the reasons for refusal to return, subjective intent, etc., the act of refusal to return can be deemed as the same as the embezzlement.

(A) On August 23, 2013, the Defendant is among the goods indicated in the facts charged, such as the minutes of the Village Association through F, which were the full-time directors of the Plaintiff or the Village Association, and the Defendant is among the goods charged.