The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. In full view of all the evidence, including the statements made by the victim D in the summary of the grounds for appeal, the court below erred by misapprehending the fact that the defendant was embezzled while receiving the light scrap metal payment from D and being kept in custody for the business, and ordered C to deliver a repayment plan and a letter of commitment to C while deceiving D and allowing C to establish a right to collateral security to which C is a creditor, but the court below acquitted the defendant of the facts charged of this case, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The lower court’s judgment 1) The lower court held that this part of the facts charged is that D is the Defendant Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “victim Co., Ltd.”)

The issue is whether D arbitrarily consumeds the amount that D paid to the victim without delivering it to the victim company. The evidence corresponds to this part of the facts charged is that D's statement of witness D in the 7th trial record, witness D's statement in the 8th trial record, witness D's legal statement in the 8th trial record (the 10,15 trial date, D's police statement in the 8th trial record, each fact confirmation document, and each fact confirmation document in the 4th trial record, but L also stated that D lent some money to prevent credit card payment because it is well known to the defendant, the material director of the victim company, and ② If D's money paid to D's company in the 10th trial record, is not transferred to the victim company, but transferred it to the specific account of the victim.