(b) Whether the crime of acquiring stolen goods is established where he/she has been knowingly purchased with the knowledge of embezzlement of the trust property;

2. In the act of trust, since the trustee is considered to be the owner with respect to the external relationship, the third party who has acquired it shall not establish the crime of acquiring stolen property, regardless of whether the trustee knows that it is sold without the consent of the truster.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below found Defendant 1 not guilty on the ground that the facts charged for mediating stolen goods were not recognized to have been aware of the fact that the stolen goods were stolen, and that there was no proof of a crime. In taking such measures, in light of the records, the court below did not err by violating the rules of evidence.

(2) As to the grounds of appeal by the prosecutor against the remaining Defendants 2, 3, and 4, where a person entrusted with a clan's real estate from the clan disposes of it without the consent of the clan and thus the crime of embezzlement is established, the purchaser shall not be deemed a joint principal offender of the crime of embezzlement unless he conspired to acquire fake and illegal acquisition with the trustee from the beginning even though he was aware of the fact (see Supreme Court Decision 70Do2173, Jan. 26, 1971). Therefore, the reasoning of the judgment of the court below as to this point is erroneous, and the case cited by the court below is also relevant to whether the crime of embezzlement is established in the case of a second transfer of real estate, and it is not appropriate in this case.

However, in the case of trust act, since the trustee is considered to be the owner in the external relationship, the third person who has acquired it should be accepted as the trustee's disposal as the owner, regardless of whether or not he knows the fact, so it cannot be said that the property has a stolen nature in relation to the third person who has purchased it.

Therefore, it is reasonable that the court below did not recognize the defendants guilty of the crime of acquiring stolen property in this case, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to such crime.

In addition, the amendment to the indictment under Article 298 of the Criminal Procedure Act is not related to discretion, rather than to the court's duty. In addition, there is no argument that the court below's failure to recommend the prosecutor to change the indictment for the crime of stolen in this case to embezzlement is erroneous.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Yang Byung-ho (Presiding Justice)