The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

The gist of the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor is that the person entrusted with the affairs related to the receipt of money from a third party for the delegating's act falls under the ownership of the delegating person at the same time with the receipt of money, and the delegated person shall be deemed to have a relationship with the delegating person, barring any special circumstances, such as the money received from the delegating person for the purpose or purpose, and the delegated person shall be deemed to have a relationship with the delegating person's custody for the delegating person. The act of using the money for any purpose other than the limited purpose when it is strictly limited to the entrusted person's personal purpose, as well as the act of using the money by itself, even if it is exempted from the entrusting person's personal purpose, and the act of using the money itself constitutes embezzlement. Since the purpose of using the franchise obligation of this case, which the defendant received from the members, is specified for the superior organization to pay it, it shall be deemed that it constitutes embezzlement. However, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as to the defendant.

First of all, the argument that the person entrusted with administrative affairs involving the receipt of money received from a third party for the delegating person based on the act is that the money belongs to the delegating person's ownership at the same time as the money was received by the delegating person, unless there are any special circumstances, such as the money that he/she received from the members, is the money that the defendant should pay to the Seoul Regional Headquarters of the D Trade Union, a superior union.