The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine) and the victim agreed to receive a private teaching institute revenue from the account under the victim’s name; the Defendant used a large number of personal accounts of the victim and received a private teaching institute deposit; and used the income without the settlement relationship with the Defendant.

2. The lower court, based on the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, proved that the Defendant’s embezzlement as stated in the facts charged is beyond reasonable doubt.

On the ground that it is difficult to view the instant facts charged, the lower court acquitted the Defendant.

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the above evidence, the judgment of the court below is just, and there is an error of law by misunderstanding the facts as alleged by the prosecutor, as otherwise alleged by the prosecutor.

shall not be deemed to exist.

A. The Defendant asserts to the effect that the amount of money deposited by the Defendant’s students or parents to the Defendant’s personal passbook is 1:1 lecture fees to improve the academic performance of the students and 1:1 lecture fees, etc. and that there is no personal useful money.

B. The Defendant submitted the details, etc. that the Defendant spent as assistant instructors’ wages and teaching material expenses that correspond to the above Defendant’s vindication, and the victim also stated in the court of the court below that “the Defendant became aware of the fact that he would receive the assistant tuition expenses from another undergraduate type” (the 129th page of the trial record) was actually an assistant class (the 129th page of the trial record).

(c)

Ultimately, it can be recognized that the defendant has failed to clarify the management and settlement relationship of tuition fees while comprehensively supervising the operation of a private teaching institute. However, it is reasonable that the defendant embezzled tuition fees, etc.