The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In embezzlement, 1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as to embezzlement, the intent of unlawful acquisition in embezzlement refers to the intent to dispose of property without authority contrary to the purpose of the entrustment. The defendant's act of delivering the instant multimon to J unrelated to the sale and purchase business without confirming at all the purchaser of the instant multimond (hereinafter "the instant multimond"), and it constitutes a disposition against the intent of entrustment of the victim clearly delegated. It is difficult to regard it as an act for the benefit of the victim as an act for the benefit of the victim. In this case, since the location of the property in custody is unclear due to an act contrary to the purpose of entrustment of the victim, there is sufficient intention of unlawful acquisition in this case.) The court below explained that the defendant's act of delivering the instant multimond to the victim without confirming the purchaser of the instant multimond (hereinafter "the instant multimond"), and that the defendant's act of delivering it for the purpose of proving that it is not necessary to deliver it to the victim or the victim of the instant case.

3) Nevertheless, the lower court acquitted the Defendant on the charge of embezzlement of the instant facts charged on the ground that there is insufficient evidence to prove that the Defendant had an intent to illegally obtain a return without justifiable cause, by misunderstanding of facts or misapprehending the legal doctrine, and thereby, did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine. B. The lower court’s sentence against the Defendant claiming unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution) is too un

2...