Court acquits defendant of embezzlement due to insufficient evidence and unresolved disputes between victim and third party.

The court acquitted the defendant of embezzlement charges based on the principle that unresolved doubts must be interpreted in his favor. Although the victim claimed the defendant stole money intended for car repairs, the court found the evidence insufficient because the defendant was not a party to the sales agreement between the victim and a third party. The court noted the victim's inconsistent demands and the lack of proof regarding the defendant's specific role in the financial discrepancies.