The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal reveals that the Defendant was delegated with the right of transfer from the victim D and incurred losses from making equity investments in the victim’s money. However, the Defendant deemed that the amount withdrawn from the victim’s securities account was part of the amount invested in the shares borrowed from the Defendant’s words to cover losses and returned the amount to the Defendant’s Nice account. Therefore, without the intent of embezzlement, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine as to the intent of unlawful acquisition, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. On February 20, 2008, the summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant, who was delegated by the victim D with authority to engage in stock transactions at the Seoul Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Csecurities Office, appears to be a clerical error of the victim.

Using the securities account opened in the name of the victim, a stock transaction was made with the victim's money.

On May 15, 2009, the Defendant arbitrarily wired KRW 13,920,00,000, the money of the victim in the said securities account, at the above office, to E in order to repay the Defendant’s words, and embezzled it.

B. (1) The fact that there is an act of embezzlement as an act of realizing the intent of unlawful acquisition in the crime of embezzlement requires the prosecutor to prove it. The proof should be based on strict evidence with probative value, which causes a judge to have no reasonable doubt, and if there is no such evidence, even if there is doubt about the defendant's guilt, it is inevitable to determine the defendant's interest. If there is no such evidence, even if there is a doubt about the defendant's guilt, it can be presumed that the defendant's whereabouts or use was embezzled by voluntary consumption, but it is difficult to recognize the existence of an intention of unlawful acquisition.