The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The court below found the defendant not guilty on the grounds that the facts charged in the instant case are insufficient to be sufficiently proven, but the victim consistently leased the Boscis (hereinafter “the instant Boscis”) to the defendant and stated that there was no fact that it was sold to D, and the defendant appears to have remitted one million won of the instant Boscis to the victim under the name of “H”. In light of the fact that the defendant sufficiently recognized the fact that he embezzled the amount equivalent to seven million won of the sales amount of the instant Boscis, and thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination:

A. The following circumstances are acknowledged according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below.

① The Defendant consistently stated that he did not rent the instant sckes from the victim, only the fact that he arranged to purchase the instant sckes from the victim upon D’s request, and that the purchase price is known that D (or the wife of the said person) was paid to the victim.

② At the investigation stage, D, through telephone conversations with police officers, purchased the instant sckes from the victim via the Defendant, and stated that, at the time, to whomever the Defendant and the victim were the victim, the issue of whom the purchase price was delivered is not well memory.

③ The lower court’s witness F also stated to the effect that the Defendant did not have any reason to rent the instant scke since D purchased the instant scke from the victim, and was at the time the construction site was long-term.

④ There is no objective evidence, such as a contract concluded between the Defendant and the injured party to acknowledge that a lease contract was concluded with respect to the instant guard, and the lower court witness who is the injured party.