The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles) is without credibility, and evidence submitted by the prosecutor, such as the victim’s statement, presented by the witnessO that the defendant raised a complaint about the employee’s benefit to the victim, and the facts of embezzlement of KRW 150 million between the victim and the victim, as stated in each of the facts charged in the instant case, were in a fiduciary relationship with the victim, and the defendant was in a fiduciary relationship with the victim.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, on each of the facts charged.

2. Determination

A. In a criminal trial, the conviction of guilt should be based on evidence with probative value, which could lead a judge to feel true that the facts charged are not likely to have a reasonable doubt. Unless such proof is given, the conviction of the defendant cannot be determined even if there is a suspicion of guilt against the defendant.

In addition, in light of the fact that the criminal appellate court has the character as a post-examination even after the fact, and the spirit of substantial direct trial as provided in the Criminal Procedure Act, there is a lack of evidence to exclude a reasonable doubt after the first instance court has gone through the examination of evidence such as the examination of witness.

In a case where a not-guilty verdict is rendered on the facts charged, if it does not reach the extent that it can sufficiently resolve the reasonable doubt raised by the first instance trial even if the probability or doubt about some opposing facts may be raised as a result of the appellate trial’s examination, there is an error of mistake in the determination of facts in the first instance judgment, which lacks proof of crime solely

Justifiablely concluding that the facts charged are not guilty (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Do8610, Apr. 15, 2016). B. The lower court is as indicated in its reasoning.