The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds of appeal (fact-finding) is as follows: (a) the Defendant arbitrarily sold bricks produced during the same business in a situation where the relationship with the victim was not settled; and (b) arbitrarily consumed the sales proceeds; and (c) even if it included bricks purchased from other companies among the bricks sold by the Defendant, not the bricks produced under the relationship with the same business, the purchase fund of the above bricks was disbursed from the funds formed from the business partnership with the victim; (d) so, the Defendant’s act of selling the bricks of this case and then consumed the sales proceeds constitutes embezzlement; and (e) the Defendant had the intent of embezzlement.

2. The lower court determined as follows based on the evidence duly adopted and examined: ① (a) a situation in which an individual creditor of the injured party could not operate the instant brick factory until the injured party repaid his/her debt; (b) the Defendant repaid 4 million won to the injured party for the operation of the factory; (c) a serious equal relationship between the injured party and the injured party’s trust with the injured party; (d) the Defendant, on June 3, 2013, said that the injured party could no longer be deemed to have suffered losses; (c) the operation expenses of the instant brick factory was borne by the injured party; and (d) the injured party expressed his/her intent to terminate the instant brick factory on July 29, 2013 to the Defendant; and (d) even if part of the brick of the instant case was not produced in the instant factory, it appears that the Defendant had expressed his/her intent to terminate the instant factory relationship with the injured party and the injured party’s seller; and (e) the Defendant appears to have been in the position of the injured party’s seller in China.