The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. In light of the following: (a) there is no consistency in the statement of the defendant in the statement of the reasons for appeal; (b) the defendant has no authority to receive the payment for the goods from the F convalescent Hospital; and (c) the defendant uses the price for the goods received from the F convalescent Hospital for personal purposes; and

2. The lower court, based on its stated reasoning, is difficult to recognize the Defendant’s intent to obtain unlawful acquisition.

In light of this, the lower court acquitted this part of the charges.

The circumstances indicated by the lower court are as follows: (a) the Defendant established the Victim D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”) along with C around April 2012, as well as the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court; (b) the Defendant agreed to conduct external business; (c) the Defendant entered into a contract with the F long-term care hospital under D around May 2012 to supply medical supplies, etc.; (b) the Defendant purchased goods under the name of G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “G”) operated by the Defendant with respect to the existing business partners; (c) purchased new goods under the name of D to supply them to the F Care Hospital; and (d) delivered them to the F Care Hospital under the name of D; (e) according to each estimate, tax invoice, transaction statement, etc. submitted by the Defendant; and (e) the Defendant supplied the instant goods to the F Care Hospital under the name of D to KRW 100,000 if it appears that the Defendant directly supplied them to the F Care Hospital; and (e) the Defendant supplied them to KRW 20100,300.

On the other hand, the Defendant did not pay the above KRW 10 million, and received directly the instant goods from the F Care Hospital and paid them to the buyer of the instant goods, etc. purchased in G’s name.