The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that if the aggrieved party invests KRW 2.53 billion between Company B, etc. (hereinafter “B”), he/she agreed to acquire the ownership of the shares of this case and paid all the above investments.

Accordingly, although the defendant, the representative director of B, was in the position of the person who holds the shares of this case owned by the victim, he arbitrarily offered the shares of this case as security in another place.

In contrast, the victim did not fully pay the above KRW 2.50 million to the victim.

In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts charged and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment on the ground that it is difficult to eliminate the possibility that the Defendant provided the instant shares as security in another place under the prior consent of the victim.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is a person who served as a joint representative director from October 17, 2016 to as the Defendant.

Around December 2, 2016, the Defendant, in collusion with C, obtained a loan of KRW 5 billion from the said bank at E Bank located in Seongbuk-gu, Sungnam-si (hereinafter “E Bank”), the Defendant provided KRW 5.5 billion from the victim G (hereinafter “victim”) with the Plaintiff’s shares of H (hereinafter “H”) 1,881,040,520 (hereinafter “instant shares”) out of 1,881,040 shares of 1,88,520 shares of H (hereinafter “the instant shares”) that the Defendant agreed to deliver to the victim as at January 26, 2017, while keeping the shares of KRW 1,881,040 at his own discretion during the course of business.

Accordingly, the Defendant, in collusion with C, embezzled an amount equivalent to KRW 5,643,120,000 per share price of the instant shares owned by the victim while on duty.

B. The shares of this case asserted by the defendant and defense counsel are owned by the victim.