The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor to the gist of the grounds for appeal, the court below acquitted the Defendants of the facts charged in this case, even though the Defendants, who received KRW 10 million from F as the village development fund, were sufficiently recognized that they were embezzled by arbitrarily using the same as the village residents for the victims, and the court below acquitted them of the facts charged. The court below erred by misapprehending

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is that the Defendants conspired with the residents of the local community in the Masung-gun, Namsung-gun, and had the construction of a grgeture to the same military E at the time at the time of the cooperative in the Masung-dong, Nam-gun, Nam-gun, Nam-gun, Nam-gun

In order to agree on KRW 40 million on the condition that the decision of the provisional disposition for the suspension of new construction works in F and Yangyang, it was kept for the residents of the village by receiving KRW 10,000 in total and KRW 10,000 in the face of the Village Development Fund.

Around that time, the above 10 million won was arbitrarily used and embezzled.

B. The lower court’s judgment is insufficient to acknowledge that the Defendants received KRW 10 million from F as the village development fund in light of the following circumstances, such as the progress of the provisional injunction case against construction, the process of concluding the agreement on the withdrawal of the application for provisional injunction, and the following circumstances. Even if the Defendants received KRW 10 million as the village development fund, the Defendants had the intent of embezzlement on the grounds that there was considerable reason to believe that the said money was the above as the participants in the application for provisional injunction against construction.

On the ground that it is difficult to see it, the lower court acquitted the instant charges.

1) The progress of the case of a provisional disposition prohibiting construction works (hereinafter “instant construction”) was conducted with permission granted under the name of the denying G, and F had a construction work for the original gratulation E in the south Massung-gun E.

(2) Defendant A shall affix the seal of the residents of H, who is the head of the D Village.