The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-misunderstanding and legal doctrine 1) ① (1) around April 4, 2014, the Defendant was unable to explain the circumstances in which he was lost during the process of returning the instant collateral, if he was unable to give any objection to E; ② the Defendant did not directly deliver the instant rebuttal to G around April 10, 2014; ② the Defendant did not have the instant rebuttal when G went to D; ③ around April 14, 2014, the Defendant asked the Defendant whether AB completed the instant rebuttal by means of a text message, not “I would find the instant rebuttal at the store” but rather, “I would have confirmed the burial and read the text.”

In light of the fact that “it is difficult to eliminate the possibility of loss during the return process of E”, the lower court acquitted the Defendant on the charge of embezzlement among the facts charged of this case on the ground that “it is difficult to eliminate the possibility of loss”, which affected the conclusion of the judgment due to mistake of fact.

2) In addition, in light of the legal principle that property kept in custody due to the consignment relation and that if the defendant did not properly explain his whereabouts or the place of use, he can be inferred as embezzlement. In light of the legal principle, the court below acquitted the defendant of embezzlement among the facts charged in this case in a situation where the defendant did not properly explain the whereabouts of the counter-indicted in this case, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by misapprehending the legal principle.

B. The punishment sentenced by the court below to the defendant (six months of imprisonment) is too unfortunate and unfair.2.

Judgment

A. In light of the circumstances stated in its reasoning, the lower court’s determination on the assertion of misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine 1) on the ground that, in light of the circumstances as indicated in its reasoning, the possibility of loss of AB’s Montreal (hereinafter “the instant rebuttal”) cannot be rejected without reasonable doubt during the process of recovering precious metal from the Defendant and returning it, among the facts charged of the instant case.