The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor to the gist of the grounds for appeal, the court below erred by misapprehending the fact that the defendant committed embezzlement by using 24.5 million won equivalent to the above victim's interest (1/2) out of 49 million won for sale of entertainment establishments as stated in the judgment of the court below, which operated with the victim E, as his personal debt repayment, etc., but the judgment below erred by misapprehending the fact that it affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged of the instant case: (a) around April 8, 2009, the Defendant: (b) sold the instant business establishment within the instant business establishment, sold the sales price of KRW 49 million from F, and received KRW 24,500,000,000,000 from F, and embezzled the instant business establishment for personal purposes, such as taking advantage of the victim’s personal liability, while making investment in KRW 35,00,000 from the victim; (c) sold the instant business establishment on April 7, 2012, and returned the investment money to the victim; and (d) embezzled the instant business for personal purposes, such as taking advantage of the victim’s equity, while taking custody of KRW 24,50,00,000,000 from F, which is the victim’s equity.

B. The judgment of the court below is consistent from the investigation agency to the court below's decision, and there is a change in the purport that "the defendant sold the business of this case to liquidate the partnership with "E", and the person who was permitted to sell the business of this case to G because he was the person G who was the former operator of G, and E also consented to the sale price by first appropriating the defendant's obligation to G and the tax amount of the business of this case, etc., and accordingly, G who received 49 million won as the sale price was appropriated for the defendant's obligation to the defendant and the tax amount of the business of this case." The witness G of the court below also stated the contents corresponding thereto, and hear the statements to the same purport as above.