The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. In light of the good faith principle of the grounds for appeal, a consignment relationship between the Defendant and the Korea Railroad Facilities Corporation was established regarding land expropriation compensation, and the Defendant was in the position to keep the land expropriation compensation.

Therefore, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine that acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged of the embezzlement of this case, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. As to the facts charged in the instant case at the time of the trial, the prosecutor changed the indictment to the indictment, the name of the crime, Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act, and Article 347 (2) of the Criminal Act, and Article 2 of the facts charged as follows.

C. (1) An application for amendment to a bill of amendment was filed by the court for the preliminary modification of the term “paragraph (1)” and the subject of the trial was changed by this court’s permission.

However, the prosecutor's argument that the prosecutor's mistake of the facts charged prior to the amendment (which was changed from the trial to the primary facts charged) is still subject to the trial of this court, and this will be examined first and then examined the ancillary facts.

B. On March 11, 2016, the summary of the judgment as to the assertion of mistake of facts as to the primary facts charged is that the actual owner and name of each land C and D (hereinafter “each land of this case”) are the same, and that the North Korean Office at the port of port would be damaged by mistake, etc. by the Defendant, and that the Defendant requested the Korea Railroad Facility Corporation to compensate for the expropriation of the land to the damaged person with the knowledge that he would be the owner of the land, and the Defendant received the compensation for the expropriation of the land equivalent to KRW 58,398,40 from the Saemaul Treasury account in the name of the Defendant, and kept for the victim.

The Defendant, around June 13, 2016, told E, an employee of the victim, that “The same person is land owned by another F, and thus the same person is thus a land owned by another F, so the amount of expropriation shall be returned.” However, on the 15th of the same month, KRW 3 million around the same month, KRW 6 million around the 27th of the same month, and around the 28th of the same month.