The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

According to the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor, the lower court acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged in the instant case, although it could be found that the Defendant refused to return the cargo vehicle owned by the victim’s company in order to receive unpaid wages, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts.

2. In full view of the circumstances revealed through the evidence duly adopted and examined, the lower court acquitted the Defendant of the instant facts charged on the ground that it is difficult to recognize that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone had the intent to embezzlement.

Examining the above judgment of the court below after comparing it with the records, the judgment of the court below is justified.

In addition, the court below and the court below stated that the dispute between E and F was continued in the process of transferring the victim company to the employees of the victim company at the time, and that the defendant did not receive wages while working as the employees of the victim company, and that both E and F did not distinguish the legal status of "victim company" and "representative director or owner of the company" by claiming that the defendant should be paid by F, not the victim company, even though the defendant was aware that he was the employees of the victim company, the defendant did not distinguish the legal status of "victim company" and "the representative director or owner of the company", and the defendant did not return the cargo of this case from the investigation agency, because the cargo of this case was not his own, and it should be returned to E in the presence of F. In full view of the following circumstances, it is difficult to find that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor that the defendant was the intention of unlawful acquisition in refusing the return of the vehicle.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is erroneous as the prosecutor pointed out.