The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts) E did not directly receive the balance of 50 million won from the Defendant on April 2, 2009, and thus, the Defendant’s testimony that E received it directly is false.

Judgment

According to the records, on April 2, 2009, the court below prepared a receipt (Evidence No. 125 pages) that E received KRW 50 million from the Defendant from the balance of the purchase and sale from the Defendant, and E, at the court of the court of the court below, he saw two copies of the receipt, and he saw that he saw his receipt, and that the receipt was kept by the Defendant.

The E’s statement that the receipt was drawn up in Chapter Two (48,60,61 of the trial record). However, the E’s statement is highly doubtful (E is examined by the prosecutor’s office on September 30, 2010 with respect to the case against which the F was accused of embezzlement. On April 2, 2009, he/she affixed his/her seal on the balance of KRW 50,000,000,000,000,000 won to F, and the Defendant’s remaining amount of KRW 50,000,000,000,000 won to F.

The receipt that the defendant has made a statement (the court record 228, 229 pages) and the receipt was not written in two pages) by the statement of E is the receipt that the defendant has kept by the statement of E.

The evidence presented by the prosecutor alone that the defendant was on the job because he did not receive KRW 50 million, which he had intended to deliver to E at the above time.

was proved without reasonable doubt that delivery to F was made to F.

For reasons that it is difficult to view the facts charged in this case as being acquitted due to lack of proof of crime, it is reasonable to conclude that the prosecutor’s assertion is without merit.

3. Accordingly, the prosecutor’s appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.