The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (based on factual errors, misunderstanding of legal principles) provides that the victim B's investigative agency and the statement of the court below and the investigative agency of the victim C are reliable; the defendant has access to his own background and economic power from the beginning; the victims did not have any reason to bear the operating funds of F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "the company of this case"); and there is no investment agreement or acceptance contract corresponding to the defendant's defense that "the company of this case was operated in partnership with the victim". The victims lent necessary funds (based on the transfer of income tax imposed by E Co., Ltd. and the payment of wages to the employees of the company of this case related to the company of this case) to the defendant who is the owner of the company of this case. Thus, it is natural that the defendant remitted funds to the account of the company of this case other than the defendant's personal account. Since it was necessary for the defendant to agree with the victims in the process of a separate embezzlement case, even if borrowing the funds from the victims of this case, it shall be acknowledged that the defendant did not have any capacity to repay the funds of this case from the victim.

Nevertheless, the court below acquitted the defendant on the ground that the victims could not lend the money of this case to the defendant, not to the defendant, but to the defendant's operating fund of this case based on C's testimony, etc. which had failed to make a proper statement about the past because brain species were serious at the time of testimony at the court below. Such judgment of the court below erred by misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles.

2. Summary of the facts charged