The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts) as the Defendant transferred the author’s property right of “F”, which is the elderly medical care program, to the victim E, the Defendant’s arbitrary consumption of the above program constitutes embezzlement in the course of business. The Defendant’s preparation and use of “application for transfer of server ownership and change of name” using the victim’s name and corporate seal impression without any authority constitutes forgery and use of private document.

2. Examining the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below in light of the records, a thorough examination of the records is based on the determination of evidence as stated by the court below. ① The evidence of this case alone, including the F program, transferred all N's assets to the victim.

It is difficult to recognize ( there is no objective evidence that the defendant transferred the above program, which is an important business operator), and rather, the defendant appears to independently operate the F program-related business by lending the victim's name. As such, the author's property right to the above program is not only the victim but also the defendant is engaged in the duty to collect program user fees as an employee of the victim, the charge of occupational embezzlement on the premise that the defendant is engaged in the duty to collect program user fees is not proven, and ② The defendant appears to have given prior and implied consent to use the victim's name and corporate seal impression in advance in order to transfer the right to manage the server as stated in the facts charged. The evidence of this case alone

For reasons of insufficient recognition, the judgment of not guilty of all the facts charged as to the forgery and uttering of private documents is just and acceptable, and there is no new evidence that corresponds to the facts charged in this case in the trial.