The judgment of the court below (including the portion not guilty) shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for four months.

except that this judgment.

1. A summary of the grounds for appeal 1) The prosecutor (1) and the defendant misleads the prosecutor (1) about the facts (1) and used the money for personal purpose, such as failure to submit a receipt, without explaining business relevance to each money recorded in the facts charged.

Even though it can be seen, the court below acquitted the facts charged.

(2) The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, and eight hours of community service) is deemed to be too unfortunate and unfair.

2) Defendant (1) The Defendant, as a partner of the victim’s trade, used all the money indicated in the facts charged for business purposes.

However, the court below found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged on the ground that the defendant did not memory detailed contents and did not submit a receipt.

(2) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. The prosecutor bears the burden of proving the facts charged in a criminal trial as to the prosecutor’s assertion of mistake of facts, and the conviction should be based on evidence with probative value sufficient for a judge to have the conviction that the facts charged are true to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt.

Therefore, if there is no such evidence, even if there is doubt as to the defendant's guilt, it is inevitable to determine it as the benefit of the defendant (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Do9633, Nov. 11, 2010). The court below cannot see that the defendant embezzled each money as stated in this part of the facts charged for the same reason as the statement in its reasoning.

The decision was determined.

Examining the judgment of the court below in light of the fact that the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, in particular, the main expenses, meal expenses, etc. stated in this part of the facts charged are irrelevant to business affairs in light of the date and place of use, etc., the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone proves that the defendant embezzled the above money without any reasonable doubt.

It is difficult to see.