The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (as to the acquittal portion of the judgment of the court below), when comprehensively considering the victim, witness G, F, and H’s statements, and the victim’s work union, etc., the court below acquitted the defendant of this part of the facts charged, although the defendant has embezzled both the instant column and the construction sections indicated in the attached disposition section, and found the defendant not guilty of this part of the facts charged. The judgment of the court below erred by misapprehending the facts and affecting the conclusion

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged 1) The Defendant, on November 1, 2009, kept 192 parts of the market price of KRW 9,532,00 in the column of the sum of KRW 9,532,00,00 of the market price after having been supplied with materials from the victim E in Macheon-si, Macheon-si (hereinafter “the column of this case”). The Defendant, from January 2008, embezzled the construction section embezzlement at around that time, sold and embezzled in mind at the market price of KRW 84,535,00 as stated in the records of the separate storage section, which is the victim’s possession in the above warehouse, from January 2008, and embezzled the construction section equivalent to KRW 67,519,800 in the market price of the attached section disposal section around 2010.

B. The judgment of the court below 1) concluded that the part of the embezzlement embezzlement part was first made by the defendant's assertion, that there was no request from the victim for assembly on November 2009, and that from around that time to 2010, the victim's statement, which is consistent with the facts charged, sold the part in custody at H around 2008, and that it was only sold the part in custody. The victim's statement, which is consistent with the facts charged, was known as the owner of D's business and requested the assembly of materials such as 518 p.m. (3kW 506kW 506kW 50kW 12 LW 12 LW 12, and it was later known that the defendant was actually engaged in the business, and that he disposed of the part in this case with the mind that it was difficult to start the business. Furthermore, it conforms with the facts charged.