The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal lies in a difference between the inventory of the G Burial as indicated in the judgment of the court below (hereinafter “the store in this case”) and the total of 35,831,500 won between the actual inventory and the total of 1,932 market prices at the time of closing the store around July 2014 by the victim of G Burial as indicated in the judgment of the court below (hereinafter “the store in this case”). This difference is very unusual. The defendant cannot explain the difference in addition to the defendant who managed the inventory as the inventory manager in the above store, and the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant of the facts charged in this case, even though the defendant did not provide reasonable explanation, is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the evidence in the judgment below, the court below determined that the defendant conducted a inventory inspection during the management of the store of this case and submitted the result to the head office; the fact that there was a difference between the inventory of the head office and the actual inventory returned by the defendant at the time of the last settlement; the defendant prepared a letter of performance assurance to pay back the items; the fact that the defendant returned the items differently is recognized as having been registered; but the above fact alone is acknowledged as a result of the records in the contract entered into between the defendant and the head office, but the defendant should consider the difference as the sale and deduct the difference from the commission to be paid by the defendant; the compensation for the excess of the fee should be deducted from the commission to be paid by the defendant; even though the defendant did not sell the goods normally, it constitutes a subject of inventory inspection after arbitrarily registering it with the computer as if the defendant sold the goods normally.