The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. There is no circumstance to deem that the deceased N, the inheritee of the Defendant, had a claim for the purchase price of the former BF and G land (hereinafter “instant land”) against the former C&A corporation (hereinafter “victim”).

If a damaged corporation arbitrarily uses the property owned by the victimized corporation in a situation where it is difficult to specify whether the cause of acquiring the instant land was traded or sold, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant had the intent to acquire unlawful land.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles and misconception of facts.

2. Determination

A. A. Around November 16, 2012, the Defendant, as the representative director of the victimized Corporation, provided the instant land, etc. owned by the victimized Corporation as collateral, and embezzled the property of the victimized Corporation by using the said loan at will during the occupational storage of KRW 170,00,00 from E Union to the IF’s account under the name of the victimized Corporation. (ii) around November 18, 2013, the Defendant embezzled the property of the victimized Corporation by arbitrarily using KRW 79,161,90 while borrowing KRW 80,00 from K Union to the IF’s account under the name of the victimized Corporation. (iii) around July 24, 2014, the Defendant embezzled the property of the victimized Corporation by arbitrarily using KRW 79,161,90 while taking out loans from K Association to the IF’s account under the name of the victimized Corporation.

B. The lower court determined as follows: (a) comprehensively taking account of the developments leading up to the establishment of the victimized corporation, the actual operating entity of the victimized corporation; (b) the developments leading up to the transfer of ownership in the name of the victimized corporation; (c) the developments leading up to the Defendant’s appointment as the representative director of the victimized corporation; and (d) the circumstances leading up to the Defendant’s lending of KRW 170 million to the victimized corporation as the deceased’s heir.