The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the proceeds from the sale of shares received by the Defendant, as a matter of course, from the time of remittance to shareholders, the Defendant’s intent of embezzlement was expressed externally at the time of voluntary payment to P.

Even if the Defendant paid USD 222,00 to P in return for the portion for which the Defendant attempted to save the commission for the purchase and sale of shares, the Defendant did not have the right to use the proceeds from the sale of shares for the management of the company. Therefore, the Defendant’s embezzlement of USD 222,00, which is part of the proceeds from the sale of shares, was established at the time of payment to P without the consent of the victims, for the remaining USD 88,800 except for the portion corresponding to the Defendant’s share at the time of payment to P.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant is erroneous in misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles.

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination on the primary facts charged: (a) The ownership of the money entrusted with the purpose and purpose of the legal doctrine should be deemed reserved until the money is used for the specified purpose and purpose; (b) however, in a case where the specific nature of money is not required, even if the money is temporarily used as long as the trustee is in a state of replacing another money in the necessary time without going against the purpose of the entrustment, the crime of embezzlement cannot be established; and (c) only when the trustee consumes the money for another purpose contrary to the purport of the entrustment, it constitutes the crime of embezzlement (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Do2939, Oct. 11, 2002).

(1) The defendant and the victims shall make a lump sum sale of 40% of the shares of the Hong Kong corporations they own, and the defendant himself/herself shall be the defendant around February 8, 2012.