The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal: misunderstanding the legal principles, the defendant was not in the status of the representative of the clan C at the time of the instant case, and therefore the defendant's refusal to return documents related to the clan G is recognized as the intention of occupational embezzlement and illegal acquisition.

However, the court below acquitted G on the facts charged of this case on the ground that G was not the legitimate chairperson of the clan of this case. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the intent of unlawful acquisition of occupational embezzlement, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant was the president of the clan C by December 13, 2014.

From December 20, 2010 to December 13, 2014, the Defendant, as the chairperson of the victim C clan, rejected the return of the above clan-related documents requested by G from December 13, 2014, even though G was selected as the new chairperson of the clan and was demanded by G to return the above clan-related documents several times, while G was required to return them for its business purposes, such as three registration certificates of real estate owned by the clan, the trade contract of the building owned by the clan, six head of the bank with funds deposited by the clan, and one payment of money.

As a result, the defendant embezzled three registration certificates of real estate owned by the family of the victim C necessary for the management of the property of the victim C in breach of his/her duties, and embezzled six deposits, cash withdrawal, etc.

B. The lower court determined that the instant facts charged on the premise that G is the lawful chairperson of the said clan is a case where there is no proof of a crime, on the ground that, according to subparagraph 5 of the No. 5 of the No. 3, a resolution of selecting G as the chairperson at the self-general meeting of December 13, 2014 was deemed null and void due to the lack of legitimate convocation procedure.

(c)

In addition, the court's reasoning is different from the circumstances mentioned in the court's decision.