All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) Some of the embezzlements stated in the judgment of the court below in the erroneous determination of facts were used for personal purposes, but there was an implied agreement with the victim, and even if some of them were used for business expenses, the crime of embezzlement was established as to the whole amount stated in this part of the facts charged, and there was an error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. Prosecutor 1) In the instant case of erroneous determination of facts, KRW 30 million as indicated in paragraph (3) of the instant facts charged (hereinafter “instant amount”).

(2) Although the court below found the Defendant not guilty of this part of the facts charged on a different premise from the embezzlement section stated in the facts charged in the judgment of the court below, there is an error of law affecting the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination of the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts requires a prosecutor’s proof that there was embezzlement as an act of realizing the intent of unlawful acquisition. The proof should be based on strict evidence with probative value, which makes a judge not more reasonable doubt. If there is no such evidence, even if there is doubt about the Defendant’s guilt, it is inevitable to determine the Defendant’s interest. However, if the Defendant did not properly explain his whereabouts or use status even if there was no money in his/her custody under his/her entrustment, it can be presumed that the Defendant voluntarily consumed and embezzled it (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Do1743, Sept. 4, 2001).