The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant, as the president of the Federation listed in the facts charged in the instant case (hereinafter “the instant Federation”), was occupational duties to assist the president in carrying out his/her duties related to the budget execution. However, according to the Defendant’s statement, H’s telephone statement, etc., it is recognized that the Defendant, who was around December 23, 2014, walked with the support fund at the time of the general meeting of shareholders (hereinafter “general meeting of shareholders”) indicated in the facts charged in the instant case, and rejected the demand from the said complainant, even though he/she was demanded to return the support fund.

The court below rejected the credibility of the above statements without any special reason, and found the defendant not guilty of the facts charged in this case.

2. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is the Vice-Chairperson of C, an incorporated association, from around July 2013 to July 2016, the Defendant engaged in the management of public funds of the said Federation.

On December 23, 2014, the Defendant refused to return the request for return of the said incorporated association while receiving KRW 6.4 million from the ordinary general meeting of the said incorporated association and the amount of KRW 3,60,000,000,000,000,000,000, in the form of his/her business.

Accordingly, the defendant embezzled the property of the victim while on duty.

3. Determination

A. In a criminal trial, the finding of guilt ought to be based on strict evidence with probative value, which leads to a judge’s conviction to the extent that there is no doubt, and if there is no such evidence, it is inevitable to determine the defendant’s interest even if there is suspicion of guilt (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Do1726, Sept. 29, 195). B. The lower court comprehensively takes account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, based on witness F and G’s legal statement and evidence submitted by the prosecutor.