The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the summary of the grounds for appeal, since the defendant can recognize the fact that he received a construction contract payment from E through a partnership agreement with E, the defendant is in a position to keep the above money for E, the court below's decision denying the defendant's status as a custodian is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles or erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

2. Determination

A. The burden of proof of criminal facts prosecuted in a criminal trial is the prosecutor, and the conviction is based on the evidence of probative value, which makes the judge feel true beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, if there is no such evidence, the defendant is suspected of guilty, even if there is no such evidence.

Even if there is no choice but to judge the interests of the defendant.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2002Do5662 delivered on December 24, 2002, etc.). B.

Based on these legal principles, the health unit, the lower court’s judgment in the part on “2. Judgment,” and the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, and comprehensively, the Defendant, not in a partnership business relationship with E and managing the construction cost, agreed to perform the construction work under its own responsibility by accepting a lump sum subcontract from E, but rather, agreed to execute the construction work in good faith at E’s request after receiving the construction contract amount. Thus, the Defendant used the construction contract amount received from E for any other purpose than paying the construction cost re-subcontract.

Even if it is difficult to see that the defendant used the money that he had been on duty for E, and there is no other evidence to recognize the status of the defendant as the custodian for E, it is not guilty of the facts charged in this case.