A. If the land is not farmland actually used for cultivation even if it falls under farmland, the trust contract or sales contract is not null and void, and thus the status of custodian can be recognized to the other party. Thus, the defendant, who is the trustee of the land of this case, arbitrarily disposes of it constitutes embezzlement.

B. In addition, whether the land falls under the farmland stipulated in the Farmland Act should be determined according to the actual phenomenon of the land regardless of the land category in the public register. Since the land in this case is used as access roads to factories for not less than 20 years, and it does not fall under the objects to be protected by the Farmland Act, it cannot be deemed an obstacle to the establishment of embezzlement.

2. Determination:

A. In order to recognize the status of the custodian of farmland as to farmland, the truster can only cancel the title trust after the date and seek return by satisfying the requirements for acquiring ownership of the farmland. However, in this case, the victim who trusted the land of this case to the defendant is a general corporation that cannot acquire farmland under the Farmland Act, so from the beginning, the defendant is not in the status of preserving farmland for the victim.

B. As alleged in the above, it is only the basic date to determine whether farmland is farmland subject to restrictions under the Farmland Act in relation to farmland diversion, such as permission for farmland diversion, and regardless of such, it cannot be said that there is an application in relation to the issue of transfer of ownership, such as the validity of title trust agreement with respect to the land of this case, the land category of which is clearly a “pre-paid” on the registry regardless of whether it is farmland subject to such restrictions under the Farmland Act. As such, as in this case, it is necessary to determine whether farmland is farmland subject to embezzlement, such as the status

3. Conclusion

Thus, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, since all of the above arguments are without merit.

Judges Kim Jin-jin (Presiding Judge)