The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The judgment of the court below which acquitted the charged facts of this case is erroneous in misconception of facts.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is that the Defendant was the owner of D digging machines. Since around February 2003, the Defendant living together with C and C around February 2009, and had C keep the above digging machines. However, even if C agreed to receive consolation money under the pretext of consolation money, etc., it did not receive the said money, and even if C requested C to trade the above digging machines, even if having received the money from the buyer, it would be replaced by consolation money agreed to receive from C during that period, and there was no intention to sell the digging machines. However, around August 11, 2010, the Defendant got C to sell the digging machines through C, which was requested by the victim, who is the representative director of D through C, to sell the digging machines to G, who was entrusted with trading brokerage, by selling the above digging machines to 65 million won, and then, acquired it by transfer from the victim by 45 million won in total.

B. The Defendant asserts to the effect that there is no means to request or delegate the sale of the above excavation machines to C, consistently from the investigative agency to the trial of the party.

C. The lower court determined that: (a) the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the Defendant, namely, at the time of the conclusion of the above search and seizure contract; (b) the Defendant did not participate in the contract or talk with the victim; and (c) the Defendant delegated C with the authority to sell the above search and seizure machine on behalf of the Defendant.

There is no objective material to deem that there was a request for sale or a copy of the resident registration certificate (it cannot be readily concluded that the Defendant had the same authority to C at the time solely because the Defendant sent a copy of the resident registration certificate by facsimile or was transferred a part of the purchase price to the Defendant’s account). The instant facts charged in the instant case was ultimately a claim against C, but repaid by the Defendant.