The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (fact-finding or misapprehension of legal principles) is that the defendant received money from multiple trading companies immediately after the victim paid the money to many trading companies, so it cannot be deemed that the defendant borrowed money from the trading companies. Further, the defendant's arbitrary use of the money of KRW 10 million, which the defendant received in advance as the design cost advance, for another purpose can be deemed to have used a specified amount for the other purpose. The defendant's use of the money borrowed from the trading company as the money borrowed from the trading company as the cost of construction site was intended to perform the obligation to pay the money under the business agreement with the victim's money, and there is an error of misapprehension of legal principles or misapprehension of legal principles, which acquitted the defendant.

2. Determination:

A. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant jointly carries out a land development project for the victim D and the Dong-gu, Dong-gu, Dong-gu, and six parcels of land development project, and the victim bears the burden of the purchase cost, authorization cost, permission cost, and the transaction cost of the land. On September 23, 2009, the Defendant embezzled the total of KRW 51,405,000,000,000 from around that time to March 28, 2010, while receiving KRW 20,000 from the victim as the advance payment for the design cost to F in advance, and kept the victim for the sake of the victim.

B. The lower court’s determination is that the Defendant personally borrowed KRW 10 million in advance of the design cost of the [Attachment 1] Nos. 1 (hereinafter “No. 1”) from G, an operator of F, or paid out after using it as the construction site operating expenses under his/her understanding, and the remainder Nos. 2 through 14 are paid by the victim to construction business operators, material suppliers, etc.