The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the summary of the grounds for appeal including the victim I’s statement and the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts and not guilty of the facts charged in the instant case, even though it can be sufficiently recognized that the defendant refused to return KRW 20 million stored for the victim and embezzled the facts.

2. In a judgment of conviction in a criminal trial, the conviction should be based on evidence with probative value sufficient for a judge to have a reasonable doubt that the facts charged are true, and even if there is no such proof, the conviction cannot be rendered against the defendant even if there is a suspicion of guilt.

In addition, according to the purport of the principle of substantial direct examination adopted by the Criminal Procedure Act, in order for the appellate court to reverse the first instance court’s decision denying the credibility of the statement by a witness of the first instance, it should be deemed that, in principle, the first instance court’s decision was clearly erroneous or that the first instance court’s decision is clearly erroneous or that the first instance court’s decision is remarkably unfair when comprehensively considering the results of the first

In particular, in the case of evidence supporting the facts charged, even though the first instance court, which directly observed the appearance and attitude of the witness who directly observe the witness's statement while proceeding the witness examination procedure, judged that the credibility of the witness's statement cannot be acknowledged, if the appellate court intends to determine that the credibility of the witness's statement can be acknowledged by following it, the first instance court's ruling rejecting the credibility of the witness's statement should be sufficient and acceptable.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2006Do4994 Decided November 24, 2006, and Supreme Court Decision 2012Do2409 Decided January 31, 2013, etc.). In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the instant case was examined and the lower judgment was rendered.