The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Considering the summary of the grounds for appeal that the victim D did not raise any objection even though the victim D knew of the power of attorney issued by the victim D to the defendant, and that the victim D knew of the transfer of a vehicle with a long-term parking system through CCTV, the victim should be deemed to have granted the defendant a final right to negotiate the agreement.

It is not so.

Even if the defendant received money in consideration of the right to receive the agreed money on behalf of the victim D, it constitutes embezzlement if the defendant arbitrarily uses the money.

2. Around June 2011, the Defendant was asked by the victim D, the owner of an adjacent building in Gwanak-gu in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, to negotiate on behalf of the owner of the adjacent building with the owner of the building on behalf of the owner of the building.

Around June 13, 2011, the Defendant agreed to receive KRW 30 million from F to the agent F of E, the owner of the above building, as compensation for damages, in the vicinity of the said new construction site of the Gosiwon, and then he received KRW 30 million from F to the account in the name of Han Bank in the name of the Defendant, and stored for the victim D, the Defendant embezzled it by consuming it as expenses of the Defendant’s operating office, etc. around that time.

3. The court below's finding of facts as stated in its holding, and there is a strong doubt that the defendant embezzled part of the agreed amount while he was in custody for D after obtaining the power of agreement from D and reached an agreement with E. However, in order to avoid the criminal liability of fraud regarding forgery of private documents and fraud regarding 31,500,000 won of the agreed amount, if recognized, the court below received the agreed amount by obtaining the power of final agreement from D through delegation and telephone, and some of them were used with D's permission.