Court acquits defendant of embezzlement due to lack of direct evidence proving specific intent to permanently deprive owners of funds.

The court acquitted the defendant of embezzlement charges based on a finding that the prosecution failed to provide direct, unambiguous evidence of her criminal intent. Although an expert testified that the defendant managed the cash register and that a significant financial deficit existed, the court ruled that mere management of funds without proof of a specific intent to permanently deprive the owners does not constitute the crime. Consequently, the prosecution's case was dismissed because the required elements of the offense were not met by the available evidence.