The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is reasonable to deem the Defendant guilty, since the Defendant refused to return the E-owned money, while keeping the money, the use of which was specified, and refused to return it. However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts.

2. The summary of the facts charged in this case is the victim E's female life.

On July 12, 2011, the Defendant received a letter of KRW 74 million from the victim’s post office account (Account NumberF) in the name of the victim and deposited KRW 26 million from the victim’s post office account (Account NumberF) in Busan-do 5-dong Busan-dong Office, Busan-do, and deposited KRW 50 million in the new bank account of G on July 13, 2011, and deposited KRW 30 million in the agricultural bank account of G, 200 million on July 13, 2011, with the Defendant’s request to keep money from the victim.

On January 2013, the defendant asserted that he was the money of the defendant who was requested by the victim to return at the residence of the above defendant and embezzled it.

3. The lower court and the lower court: (a) determined the purpose and purpose; (b) the ownership of the money entrusted with the purpose and purpose is reserved until the money is used for a specified purpose and purpose; (c) so long as the trustee is in a state of replacing another money in the necessary time without going against the purpose of the consignment, even if the money is temporarily used; and (d) the trustee uses the money for another purpose in breach of the purpose of the consignment; and (c) determined that the crime of embezzlement is constituted only when the money is consumed for another purpose; and (d) comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the Defendant and E, who are one-way, are repeatedly deposited and withdrawn through their own and a third party’s account from July 12, 201 to July 12, 201.