The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Regarding the embezzlement of the summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of the legal principles), the victim D gave money to the defendant by specifying the purpose of investing in E, and it is recognized that the defendant used the money for another purpose instead of paying the above money to E.

With regard to fraud, regardless of the investment in E, the victim F has lent money to the defendant regardless of the fact that the defendant was preventing the return of the money to other investors, and there was no intention or ability to repay the money from the damaged party at the time of borrowing the money.

Nevertheless, since the court below acquitted all of the facts charged of this case, the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts or misapprehending the legal principles.

2. The lower court acquitted all of the charges of this case on the following grounds.

A. The determination of embezzlement as to embezzlement against victim D is a crime of punishing a person who keeps another's property to embezzled such property, and thus, in order to establish embezzlement, the property subject to embezzlement is required to be owned by another person.

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the Defendant promised to pay the amount invested by the victimized party as interest at a certain rate per month in return for the promise to receive money from the victimized party to make an investment from E and then make an investment again, and made an investment as interest payment to E, and the victim also remitted money to the Defendant on the premise that he/she invested in E, not the victim, as well as the Defendant.

When factual relations are as above, the money that the victim remitted to the defendant with the investment deposit is delivered to the defendant so that the ownership of the money is transferred to the defendant, and the victim's purpose and use.