Even if the Defendant purchased all the list of households presented to G and J and kept in each household unit that was sold in lots by G and J, the Defendant intended to return the list to the Defendant or to use the difference at a lower price than the amount notified to the victims and arbitrarily used the difference. Thus, the Defendant intended to use the list at a later price or at a cost under the lease management contract for each household.

Even if the defendant's intent of illegal acquisition is recognized at the time.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the charged facts of this case is erroneous in misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles.

2. Determination

A. The crime of embezzlement is a crime that punishs a person who keeps another’s property to embezzled such property. Therefore, in order to establish the crime of embezzlement, the property subject to embezzlement is required to be owned by another person.

An act of using funds for any purpose other than the limited purpose upon being entrusted with a strictly limited amount of funds by a third person constitutes embezzlement by by itself constituting realizing the intent of unlawful acquisition.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016Do781, Jul. 26, 2018). (B)

1. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the following facts can be acknowledged:

① Around November 2015, B was newly constructed in Pyeongtaek-si B with 168 households, etc., and C, a representative director, was established around August 2015 for the lease and management of B.

G and most of the buyers of B, including J, shall be the households of B, in order to obtain lease profit by leasing them to the US, etc.