The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor is as follows: (a) if the Defendants’ sales right transfer proceeds disposed of on behalf of the victim did not reach an agreement on the settlement relationship between the Defendants and the victim, it would be reasonable to return all the proceeds to the victim; (b) however, the lower court erred by misunderstanding the facts

2. The summary of the facts charged in this case is as follows.

The primary facts charged (Embezzlement) is that the Defendants are persons in a de facto marital relationship, and Defendant B is the external relationship of the victim D.

On March 21, 2015, when entering into a business license transfer agreement with the victim and the "F" store in Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government E and 502 (hereinafter referred to as "the instant store"), the Defendants received the payment of transfer or acquisition (sale price) as KRW 40 million on March 21, 2015, KRW 2 million on March 21, 2015, and KRW 18 million on March 23, 2015, and transferred the business license to the victim, respectively.

(B) On June 15, 2015, the Defendants sold the instant provisional sales right to G at KRW 15 million and sold the instant provisional sales right to KRW 15 million to G around July 16, 2015 and kept the victim in custody on or around August 30, 2015 without complying with a request from the victim for the return of the above sales right. The Defendants sold the instant provisional sales right to G at KRW 15 million and sold the instant provisional sales right to KRW 15 million to G on or around July 16, 2015 without complying with the request of the victim for the return of the sales right.

Accordingly, the Defendants conspired and embezzled the victim's property.

B. The Defendants in the preliminary charge are those in a de facto marital relationship, and Defendant B is the victim’s external relationship.

Defendants around March 21, 2015.