The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

In embezzlement, "the custody of the goods" means the state in which the actual or legal control over the goods is over, and the custody should be based on the consignment relationship.

Although the Defendant formally transferred KRW 2 billion to a single bank account of J (hereinafter “J”), the Defendant cannot be deemed to have paid intermediate payment to J when the Defendant transferred KRW 2 billion out of the said KRW 2 billion to the said one bank account, insofar as it is evident that P issued a passbook and seal to the said one bank account and notified the password to the said Defendant and actually kept the said one bank account, it should be deemed that the Defendant paid intermediate payment to J only when the Defendant transferred the said KRW 1 billion out of the said KRW 2 billion to the said one bank account.

P consistently stated in an investigative agency and the lower court’s decision that “The accounts known to the Defendant to receive a heavy amount are not one bank account, but agricultural bank accounts.”

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

Judgment

The lower court rendered a not guilty verdict on the facts charged of this case on the grounds as indicated in its reasoning, on the grounds that there was no proof of crime. In other words, it is difficult to view that P consistently made a statement on the following circumstances, which can be recognized by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court and the trial court, that “P is an account known to the Defendant to receive a heavy amount, not an one bank account, but an agricultural bank account,” and rather, P was in the initial telephone statement to an investigative agency around January 18, 2013, which entered into the first telephone statement to the investigative agency around January 18, 2013, that “2 billion won was paid at the Defendant’s request as the transfer price from the victimized company that had been operated by the said person