The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the reasons for appeal is as follows: (a) excluding KRW 2,408,00,000 from the F’s short-term loan account for the same period as indicated in the list of crimes attached to the charges charged; and (b) excluding the sales contract amount of KRW 2,408,00,000 from the F’s short-term loan account for E and buyer, the F’s funds of the Company C (hereinafter “C”) should be deemed as embezzlement of the company’s funds in the form of a half-yearly payment, even though there is a lack of claim to substantially counter-performance from the time when the sales

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case is erroneous and adversely affected by the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The lower court’s determination is unreasonable to determine whether the Defendant intended unlawful acquisition by removing only the FF’s short-term loan account in the name of the Defendant, as stated in the facts charged, from the following: (i) the Defendant, outside the name of the Defendant, was practically holding a claim equivalent to the amount entered in the pertinent account book with respect to C in the name of F and I; (ii) the Defendant was a major shareholder and a representative director; and (iii) the F and I were shareholders and executive officers of C; and (iv) the Defendant was managing a short-term loan in the name of F and I; (iii) there is no other act of suggesting the appearance of funds flow or withdrawal; and (iv) there is no other act of suggesting that the Defendant’s withdrawal of funds from the account of a legal entity to receive the payment of the total amount of loans; and (v) the ownership of the F and I’s short-term loan was temporarily managed at KRW 400,7484,708,408,708,000.