The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. In full view of the circumstances in the reasoning of appeal, the lower court acquitted the Defendant of the instant facts charged on the ground that it is difficult to deem that the Defendant embezzled C’s money without reasonable doubt, on the ground that it is difficult to deem that it was proven that the Defendant embezzled C’s money without reasonable doubt.

However, according to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, such as the statements of E, F, and G investigation agency, the statements of D in investigation agency and the court below, it is reasonable to recognize the fact of embezzlement as stated in the facts charged in this case while the defendant has been in the business custody of C's funds.

Therefore, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the judgment.

2. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the evidence alone presented by the prosecutor was in a position to keep C’s funds at the time and time as indicated in the instant facts charged.

It is difficult to view that the embezzlement of C’s funds has been proven to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that acquitted the defendant of this case on the same purport shall not be erroneous as pointed out by the prosecutor.

① The Defendant, around the time following the date and time indicated in the instant facts charged, received a subcontract from C to perform the Defendant’s leading construction work under the name of C; however, 85% of the construction cost that C received was paid as the subcontract construction cost; and the Defendant asserted that C’s execution of the funds was conducted under the D’s approval, which is the actual operator of C through K, who is the accounting staff at the time.

The date and time stated in the facts charged of this case.