The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. In light of the following circumstances, the Defendants’ embezzlement and intent of illegal acquisition is recognized in light of the evidence presented by the Prosecutor based on the summary of the grounds for appeal.

Nevertheless, the court below found the Defendants not guilty of all the charges of this case on the grounds that the Defendants cannot be recognized as the intention of unlawful acquisition. It erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment

A. According to the statement that Defendant B sent to its partners as to No. 1 of the facts charged (Evidence No. 243 of the evidence record), the details of use of the crime of this case No. 21 and No. 22 are not indicated, but are indicated in the name of insurance premium, card fee, etc., and the comprehensive income tax reserve in the list of crimes No. 1 of the facts charged also did not clearly explain that the Defendants were using it.

Therefore, the victims did not raise any objection against the false statements.

Even if so, the defendants allowed the voluntary use of the proceeds of the restaurant of this case on the basis thereof.

shall not be deemed to exist.

B. On October 28, 2015, the Defendants indicated Defendant B’s refusal to return the remaining KRW 41,392,622 after disposing of the instant restaurant. The part of the Defendants’ use of the proceeds from the disposal of the restaurant is unclear as to whether the claims asserted by the Defendants exist.

2. Determination

A. The lower court rendered a judgment of not guilty on the facts charged of this case in detail in the part of the judgment of the lower court (from 14th to 7th page of the judgment of the lower court).

B. In addition to the above circumstances revealed by the lower court, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and this court, namely, ① the Defendants’ case of paying the Defendant A’s personal insurance premium again, No. 21 per annum No. 21 per annum of the crime sight table, on June 2012, 201, is the welfare cost among the statement of settlement of accounts on June 2012.