The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles)

A. misunderstanding of the legal doctrine 1) The victim suffers from dementia, so it constitutes “when a statement is unable to be made due to any other similar cause” under Article 314 of the Criminal Procedure Act, which provides for exceptions to professional rules.

2) At the court below, the victim recognized that he signed and sealed the protocol prepared by the investigative agency, and stated that there was no fact that the investigative agency consistently allowed the Defendant to use his money.

Unlike J and K’s statement, there is no circumstance to deem that the victim’s statement is not conducted under particularly reliable circumstances only when the victim’s statement was made, unlike J and K’s statement.

3) Ultimately, a statement made to an investigative agency of a victim is admissible as it is acknowledged by Article 314 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and is made under particularly reliable circumstances.

B. Fact misunderstanding 1) The Defendant remitted money from the public fund account account account account of G to the account under the name of his family members or branch members, or disbursed apartment management expenses, vehicle purchase expenses, real estate purchase expenses, etc.

The victim stated that the investigative agency does not allow the defendant to use the money in the above account for the same purpose as the defendant asserts.

The victim had K get k to loan KRW 15 million due to the lack of operational funds of G.

The injured person permitted the Defendant to use funds of more than 400 million won for personal purposes.

It is difficult to see it.

2) The Defendant, while borrowing money from the victimized party, did not prepare a loan certificate or set the due date for payment, and paid the loan in cash.

One of the arguments is that it is difficult to understand in light of the empirical rule.

3) Money that the Defendant remitted to the victim, etc. was either the victim’s money or the cash received from the J, and even if the Defendant did so, the money of the victim.