The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal acknowledged the fact that the defendant received the rent of KRW 3 million from the investigative agency to the personal account under the name of the victim and used the money for his personal purpose around that time. The defendant asserted that the defendant deposited the rent of this case in advance to the account in the name of the victim's association before five days prior to the deposit, and that he received the payment of KRW 3.5 million for the settlement thereof. In order to accept the above argument of the defendant, it should be clearly stated about the reasons why the above three million won was made in advance, but there was no deliberation thereon. Even if the defendant had a claim against the victim association about KRW 3.5 million, it is reasonable to deem that the defendant has an intention to obtain unlawful acquisition, in view of the circumstance that the defendant paid KRW 3 million to his own account without undergoing the procedure such as preparation of settlement documents or agreement with the victim's association, even if there was a claim against the victim association for the above KRW 3.5 million.

However, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant is erroneous and erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged of this case is as follows: “The defendant is the representative director of the Victim C Association established on June 25, 2010, and was in charge of exercising overall control over the operation of the said association until October 3, 2012. The defendant leased the nives owned by the E on the D D on January 13, 2012 and raised the originals, and embezzled the rent of KRW 3 million to F with no civil petition filing to the Ha Chang-gun Office, and then, embezzled the rent of KRW 3 million to the Agricultural Cooperative (G) transferred to the defendant’s name and kept in custody for the victim on duty, etc. at any time.”

B. The Defendant stated at an investigative agency that “I will not frighten but have been used as a living expense, etc.” However, the Defendant transferred money to the account in the name of the victim union in the instant trial.