The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

The summary of the facts charged is that the defendant is a person operating a farming association corporation C in Go Chang-gun B of North Korea, and the victim D is a person engaged in agricultural product processing and distribution business in the front line of the front line of the Jeju.

Around October 2016, the Defendant entered into a contract with the victim for a culture-free partnership business with the victim, and the victim jointly invested and purchased a dry field in the form of so-called " dry field so-called dry field". The victim cultivated and managed dry field, and the Defendant agreed to distribute profits by supplying free of charge to the Korea Agriculture and Fisheries Distribution Corporation during the harvest season.

Around that time, the victim entered into a contract to sell agricultural products with a single dry field located in Seopo-si, Seopo-si, Seopo-do, and the Defendant entered into a contract to sell to the seller a total of KRW 352,60,000 for dry field total of KRW 55,77 by October 31, 2016, by means of remitting the purchase price to the seller.

The Defendant and the victim, until February 2017, managed the dry field purchased as above and shipped free of charge, and the Defendant supplied 53,449 gs (20 gs and hereinafter the same shall apply) to the Agricultural and Fishery Distribution Corporation, and around March 2017, paid KRW 115,878,000 in total for free sale to the account in the name of the said farming association corporation and kept in custody for business purposes.

On June 2017, the Defendant, at the Defendant’s house located in the Go Chang-gun of North Korea, embezzled the Defendant’s refusal to return, despite receiving a request from the victim to “if the shipment was completed without delay, to settle the accounts of the profits under the said business contract.”

Whether the lower court proven the sales proceeds and expenses of the lower court: (a) stated by mistake that H had harvested from another dry field in the course of harvest; (b) the N stated that there was a mixture of unclaimed things owned by the same owner on other dates when washing work; and (c) there is a possibility that the amount calculated by H would not be accurate; and (d) the written confirmation prepared by L/M is calculated on the basis of H’s calculation.