The appeal by the prosecutor is dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

(M) In light of the victim F’s statement, etc., the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, even though the court below acquitted the facts charged of this case, although it could sufficiently recognize the fact that the defendant had embezzled by arbitrarily using the proceeds of selling berara rail, etc. removed without permission.

Judgment

The court below held that the defendant removed three unsold apartments owned by E (hereinafter "E"), Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "E"), and embezzled approximately KRW 5,500,000 of the proceeds from the sale of the apartment of this case, which were attached to Dong-gu, Nam-gu, Seoul (hereinafter "E"), and that the F, who was in charge of the comprehensive management of the apartment of this case, could have been neglected for 15 years for the apartment of this case, could have been deemed to have been in need of removal of urban gas pipes, etc. and improvement of surrounding apartment areas. ② H, I, and J stated that F, who was ordered the defendant to remove the apartment of this case, stated that it was difficult for the defendant to know that he had been subject to the removal of the apartment pipelines of this case around November 201, and that it was difficult for the defendant to have been subject to the criminal punishment of this case on account of the non-payment of wages from the defendant, etc.