The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding the facts) reveals that the instant materials were owned by the victim, and the Defendant was aware of such circumstances, that the Defendant and D concluded a lease contract between them, and that D concluded a construction contract on the building with the victim, the Defendant acquired the status of a person who stores the instant materials to the victim under office management, cooking, or good faith principle after the Defendant was transferred possession of the instant materials from D.

In addition, the defendant was aware that the material of this case was owned by the victim and was called from the victim to take the material of this case, and thus, the defendant had the intention of embezzlement is recognized as willful negligence.

The material of this case was not used by the Corporation as property value, and the defendant refused to return the material of this case even though the victim claimed to return it, and the defendant seems to have actually gained profit by disposing of the material of this case, so the intention of illegal acquisition by the defendant is also recognized.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant.

2. Examining the evidence of this case in detail in light of the records, the court below, on the grounds stated in its reasoning, has either the defendant is in the position of a person who keeps property in the crime of embezzlement, or the defendant has the intention of embezzlement or illegal acquisition.

It is not sufficient to recognize the recognition.

In light of the above, the protocol that acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged in the instant case is just and acceptable, and it does not interfere with the above recognition by only the legal statement of the witness D, and there is no other evidence to reverse it.

Therefore, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts alleged by the prosecutor.

It is not recognized.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor’s appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the appeal is without merit.