The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

The summary of the grounds for appeal (fact-finding) is limited to 2.9 million won, which the defendant received from C, under the pretext of purchasing a number plate, and thus, the crime of embezzlement is established as long as the defendant arbitrarily uses it. However, the judgment of the court below that acquitted the defendant of the facts charged in this case is erroneous in matters of mistake of facts.

Judgment

The money entrusted with the purpose and purpose of the entrustment is reserved by the truster until it is used for the specified purpose and purpose. In particular, if the specific nature of the money is not required, even if it is temporarily used by the trustee to replace it with another money at the necessary time without going against the purpose of the entrustment, the crime of embezzlement shall not be deemed to be established. The trustee shall only constitute the crime of embezzlement when he consumes it for another purpose contrary to the purport of the entrustment.

(1) In the event that there is no doubt about the crime committed in a criminal trial, the prosecutor bears the burden of proving the criminal facts charged in a criminal trial, and the recognition of conviction ought to be based on strict evidence with probative value, which makes the judge not having any reasonable doubt that the facts charged are true to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt (Article 307(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act). Thus, if there is no such evidence, even if there is no doubt about the crime committed by the defendant, the interest of the defendant should be determined even if there is a doubt about the crime committed by the defendant.

(See Supreme Court Decision 91Do1385 delivered on August 13, 1991. Examining the evidence legitimately adopted and examined by the court below based on these legal principles, closely comparing with the reasoning of the court below and the reasoning of the judgment, it is insufficient to recognize that the court below restricted the use or purpose of KRW 2.9 million, only with the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, issued by C, to the defendant, and otherwise recognized the defendant's intent of unlawful acquisition.