The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The summary of the grounds of appeal was that when the Defendant purchased a variety of marina cases including Yellow 1 Marina (hereinafter “the instant sulfur”) from G around December 2009, the Defendant invested approximately KRW 4,100,000 from the victim. The Defendant sold the instant sulfur around January 16, 2010 to H, and then transferred KRW 5,740,00 to the Defendant’s account in the name of the victim, H, I, the wife, transferred the relevant sulfur to H, using KRW 5,740,00 of the sales price of the instant sulfur, and the Defendant did not have been entrusted with the raising of 1 Marina (hereinafter “the instant rock”), and the Defendant did not have any status of being in the custody of the Defendant’s embezzlement and the instant cancer for the victim (hereinafter “the instant pesticide”).

2. Around December 2009, the Defendant, at the livestock shed of the Defendant located in Kim Jong-si, embezzled the Defendant’s ambane worth KRW 5,600,000 in the market price and KRW 2,40,000 in the market price by refusing the payment of the price, while raising the ambane at around May 1, 2010 to June 6, 2010 when the ambane was raised with the Defendant’s livestock shed located in Kim Jong-si upon being requested by the victim D to raise the ambane in the instant case.

3. The subject of embezzlement in the judgment on the grounds of appeal is the person who keeps another’s property. Here, the custody means the possession of property through a consignment relationship. As such, in order to constitute embezzlement, there should be legal or de facto consignment relationship between the custodian of the property and the owner of the property (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do9242, Jun. 24, 2010). Meanwhile, the burden of proof for the criminal facts prosecuted in a criminal trial exists.