The judgment below

According to the reasoning, the lower court: (a) purchased 15/49 shares of H 9,292 square meters (hereinafter “victim’s share”) from G from the seller who is the owner; and (b) completed the registration of transfer of the intermediate title from the seller under the name of the trust agreement entered into between the victim and the Defendant; and (c) completed the registration of transfer of ownership from the seller under the name of the trust agreement entered into between the victim and the Defendant.

Recognizing that the title trust of this case constitutes a trust in the name of the so-called intermediate omitted registration.

Examining the relevant legal principles and the evidence duly adopted and examined by the first instance court and the lower court, the lower court’s aforementioned recognition and determination is justifiable.

There is no error of exceeding the bounds of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or of misapprehending the legal principles on nominal trust.

2. The decision shall be made ex officio;

(1) The principal agent of embezzlement under Article 355(1) of the Criminal Act must be a person who keeps another’s property. Whether a person is another’s property ought to be determined pursuant to the Civil Act, the Commercial Act, and other substantive laws (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2003Do3516, Oct. 10, 2003; 2009Do1373, May 13, 2010). In order to establish embezzlement, the crime of embezzlement refers to the possession of property through a consignment relationship. As such, the principal agent of embezzlement should have legal or de facto fiduciary relationship between the custodian of the property, the owner of the property, or the owner of other principal rights (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 203Do4828, Sept. 9, 2005; 2009Do9242, Jun. 24, 2010).