The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The lower court erred by misapprehending the fact that the Defendant did not constitute embezzlement even though there was an intention of unlawful acquisition in light of the relationship between the Defendant and the Victim Gridge, and the status of the custodian was recognized as having been entrusted between the Defendant and the victim, and in view of the relationship with D, the circumstances leading to the establishment of passbook and the details of remittance, and thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged D is from 2001 to 201 as the president of the Victim G principal meeting, a male society member of the F-affiliated society consisting of E religious organizations in Incheon region, and established a project to create a welfare fund for the aged, and then formed a committee for the promotion of welfare facilities for the aged in 2005 and held office as the chairman of the above committee for the management of the fund. At the time, the above fund was to open and deposit a community credit fund account in the name of the defendant, the above F executive member.

Thus, the defendant opened a community credit cooperative account under the name of the defendant around March 19, 2008, and deposited KRW 55,977,607, which is owned by the family council of the victims and stored for the family council of the victims.

After all, the defendant received a request from D to lend money to a private business fund, and around April 1, 2008, the above elderly welfare fund deposited in the above account at the Seocheon branch of the community credit cooperative, which was arbitrarily withdrawn from the above account and remitted the fund to D's bank account. D arbitrarily consumed the fund under the name of the private business fund, etc.

Accordingly, the Defendant, in collusion with D, embezzled KRW 55,977,607 of the Elderly Welfare Fund owned by the Victim Gridge.

B. The lower court’s judgment: (i) With respect to (i) whether the Defendant was in the position of a person in custody of the victim’s property, the witness I and J’s respective legal statements; (ii) the witness examination protocol for I; and (iii) the police interrogation protocol for K.