The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Legal principles are followed. Each Eart of this case using the POS system (sales point management system) to calculate each sales and payment amount, including a regular coponer, by classifying each credit card company into sales and calculating each sales volume during the closing hour without any complicated calculation process. Therefore, it is not necessary to separately determine the sales and cash sales amount of credit card, and if it falls under the ownership of the victim at the same time as the receipt and payment of the cash sales, only part of the payment shall be made to the victim once the balance is constituted embezzlement. However, the court below erred by misapprehending legal principles by finding not guilty of part of the sales and cash sales of credit card, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentence against an unfair defendant in sentencing (one million won in 3 million won) is too unhued and unfair.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the Defendant, as the representative director of (State)B, was operating the “D Mt” in the name of the said company and the “F Mt” in the name of the said company in Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government E, and the victim G is a person who leased the said D Mt and F Mt’s static coper from (State)B on August 4, 2014 to operate the fet in the above Mt.

When the Defendant and the victim enter into a lease agreement for the above marina, the victim shall pay to the Defendant the rental deposit and D Mart 9% of the sales proceeds, and F Mart 7% of the sales proceeds, respectively, to be paid to the Defendant, and the Defendant shall carry on the franp business under the responsibility and account of the victim, and the Defendant shall pay all payments, including the goods purchased from the damaged party who is the lessee of the franp through the single settlement counter.