The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

The lower court rendered a judgment on the following grounds: (a) the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone: (b) it is difficult to recognize that the deductible allowances reserve funds specified in the facts charged are ① the entrusted money to the Defendant even if the purpose and purpose of use were determined; (c) it is difficult to recognize that the Defendant’s custody and management of the aforementioned deductible allowances reserve funds in the name of E as stated in the facts charged; and (d) it is difficult to recognize that the Defendant voluntarily used the deductible allowances reserve funds with the intent of unlawful acquisition, and without examining whether the Defendant voluntarily used the deductible allowances reserve funds with the intent of unlawful acquisition, the instant facts charged constituted a case where there is no proof of a crime, and thus, sentenced the Defendant not guilty.

The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles) The amount to be accumulated in deductible allowances is the amount accumulated by deducting the amount equivalent to 20% per month from the allowances to be paid to the employees of the credit cooperative, and the purpose and purpose of use is specified in that it should be used for the welfare of the employees, such as meal expenses.

The defendant, who was the chief director of the credit cooperative, was in a close relationship with the deceased E, was in charge of overall control of the affairs of the credit cooperative, and was in charge of managing the account in the name of the network E in which the mutual-aid allowances reserve funds are kept, and instructed the

Judgment

In addition to all the circumstances indicated by the court below, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, namely, ① the defendant, from the investigative agency, continuously from the investigation agency, instructed the receiver and the receiver to manage the mutual aid allowance reserve account, used the money from the account, and the defendant also asserted that the money withdrawn from the account was deposited into the network E account or carried out and carried out in cash according to the direction of the network E, and ②.