Acquittal of the accused shall be acquitted.

From 192. to 192, the defendant of the public hall has been engaged in the overall management of the above Art Center as the director of the victim Eart Center in Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.

On April 206, the Defendant, even after being released from the position of the Director of the said Eart Center, was in fact in the course of performing duties for the said Eart Center. On June 20, 2006, upon obtaining a certification of the content from F, the owner of the said Eart Center, the art works owned by the Eart Center, the owner of the Eart Center, shall be separately arranged and kept, and the art works lent from the author shall be returned, but at will, at the time, approximately 172 art works in the market value were donated to the G University Museum.

Accordingly, the defendant embezzled the victim's property.

In full view of the witness H, I, and J’s statements in this court, the defendant’s statements in this court, the prosecutor’s office and police interrogation protocol of the defendant against the defendant, the records in the upper half-term rental schedule in 2006, the lower Seoul PPS schedule, etc., the defendant may recognize the fact that the date when the art of this case was taken out from the E Art Center for the purpose of donating the art of this case to G University Museum was May 11, 2006.

According to Article 356 of the Criminal Act, the statutory penalty is a imprisonment with prison labor for not more than 10 years or a fine not exceeding 30 million won. As such, Article 250 of the Criminal Procedure Act, Article 50 of the Criminal Act, Article 3 of the Addenda to the Criminal Procedure Act (amended by Act No. 8730 of Dec. 21, 2007) and Article 249 (1) 3 of the former Criminal Procedure Act (amended by Act No. 8730 of Dec. 21, 2007), the statute of limitations is seven years.

However, it is evident that the instant public prosecution was instituted on June 17, 2013 after seven years have elapsed since the completion of the criminal act.

Thus, the facts charged in this case constitute the completion of the statute of limitations, and thus, a judgment of acquittal is rendered pursuant to Article 326 subparagraph 3 of the Criminal Procedure Act.