The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds of appeal in light of the evidence of this case, the relationship between the defendant and the victim cannot be acknowledged, and even if the relationship is acknowledged, the act of the defendant's refusal to return the machinery due to the victim's withdrawal from the relationship of the same trade constitutes embezzlement. However, the court below held that the defendant's refusal to return the machinery does not constitute embezzlement by recognizing the relationship between the defendant and the victim and the victim's withdrawal from the relationship of the same trade. The court below erred

2. Determination

A. A. The prosecutor of the Amendments to Bill of Indictment maintains the existing facts charged as the primary facts charged and applied for the amendment to Bill of Indictment with the addition of the ancillary facts charged as follows, and the subject of the judgment was added by this court.

B. (1) According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court and the first instance court, the following facts are acknowledged.

The victims agreed to avoid compulsory execution of the instant machinery from the creditors of the above company by creating a appearance of selling the instant machinery owned by the victim, which is the victim, to the company he/she had operated, immediately before the bankruptcy, the victim entered into two copies of the sales contract on July 17, 2012, stating that the instant machinery shall be sold to D, which is newly established by the defendant, at KRW 90 million and KRW 77 million, respectively.

The total market value of the instant machinery is much more than 30 million won.

The Defendant, on July 17, 2012, remitted KRW 4 million to the victim on July 17, 2012 in order to have the appearance of purchasing the instant machinery by paying the purchase price to the actual victim, but limited to KRW 36 million among them.