The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the prosecutor's grounds of appeal (fact-finding or misunderstanding of legal principles) possessed the proceeds of sale in checks and cash from H and I, and the consignment relationship related to the custodian's status in the establishment of embezzlement may arise not only by explicit contracts such as lease, loan of use, entrustment, deposit, etc., but also by the provisions of the law such as business management or guardianship, custom or the principle of trust and good faith, such as guardianship, and the fact that the sales agent's employees received the proceeds and re-deposit them to the account of the Si event was done as the practice of the sales agent. In light of the above, it is reasonable to view that the Defendants were in the status of keeping the proceeds of sale in G apartment (hereinafter "the instant apartment").

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the status of the custodian of embezzlement or by misapprehending the legal principles as to the status of the custodian of embezzlement.

2. Determination

A. A. The prosecutor of the Amendments to Bill of Indictment maintains the existing facts charged as the primary facts charged and applied for the amendment to Bill of Indictment with the addition of the ancillary facts charged as follows, and the subject of the judgment was added by this court.

B. In order to establish the crime of embezzlement as to the primary facts charged, there should exist legal or de facto consignment relationship between the custodian and the owner of the property. Such consignment relationship is not necessarily established by the explicit contract between the truster and the trustee, but rather, the relationship between the truster and the trustee, the motive and background leading up to the trustee’s custody of the property, and the truster.