The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine) is cited on the grounds of appeal by mistake of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine. The allegation of misapprehension of the legal doctrine is close to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts, since the court below erred in its misapprehension of the legal doctrine on intent to illegally obtain and thus did not recognize the

may be filed.

This is also judged together.

The Defendant, as the husband of theO, who led the victims to withdraw KRW 30 million from the account in the name of the deceased whose inheritance rights are recognized, and use them for the daily living expenses of G, concluded that, although he was aware of all the embezzlement process, the mother of the victims actively needed KRW 30 million for funeral expenses, and delivered them to G. As such, the Defendant’s intent of embezzlement or unlawful acquisition is recognized.

2. Determination

A. In light of the record, according to the statement in the court of the trial of the several evidenceO which was investigated by the prosecutor's application at the trial court, the defendant was aware that the amount of money withdrawn at the time is attributable to G under the pretext of funeral expenses, living expenses, etc.

Although the defendant is recognized as having exercised the power to dispose of inherited property on behalf of the victims, the court which appears to have understood or consented thereto.

It seems that there is a high possibility to believe.

Meanwhile, D (one of the victims) stated in the court of first instance that “the Defendant asked J to refer to a request for money that is necessary to pay funeral expenses in advance.” However, as examined in the following paragraphs, D (one of the victims) cannot be trusted.

In addition to B, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor on the grounds of the reasons stated in Articles 2 through 3 of the judgment of the court below was proved without a reasonable doubt that the defendant had an intention to obtain unlawful acquisition.

see.