(1) Although Defendant 1, 2, and 3 are the ownership of Handong-dong 154-3, 154-3, Handong-dong, Ansan-gu, Gyeonggi-do and knew that the title of the registration was trusted to co-defendant 1, the court below recognized the difference between the co-defendant 1 and Defendant 3 of the court below on September 27, 1980 and the above answer as 171,701,700 won, down payment 20,000 won, down payment 20,000 won, and late payment 1980.30, 00 won, 00 won, 30,000 won, 30,000 won, 30,000 won, 1,000 won, 20,000 won, 30,000 won, and 30,000 won, 30,000 won, 300,000 won, 200 won, 300.

Of the facts of the judgment below, the part of the judgment of the court below that Defendant 3 concluded a contract to purchase the original land at the original time with the co-defendant 1, who is the title holder of the registration, and agreed to distribute the proceeds from the resale to others is not a crime of embezzlement since Defendant 3 resells the land lawfully purchased at the original time and acquired the proceeds from the resale; thus, the part of the judgment except the part of the judgment of the court below, i.e., the above defendant's embezzlement of KRW 38,341,00 among the purchase price of KRW 171,701,00 at the original time with the co-defendant 1 and the original co-defendant 1 of the court below's embezzlement of KRW 20,000 at the original time, and it is examined as to the crime that the co-defendant 1 of the court below embezzled the proceeds from the resale of KRW 5,00,000 at the original time.

The evidence cited by the court below in recognizing the above facts of crime is the above defendants and the defendant 4, 5, 6, co-defendant 1 and 2's statement at the court of the court below and the prosecutor's office, the statement in Han-gu's office in the court of law, the witness 1, the non-indicted 1, the director's clothes, the prosecutor's office's and the judicial police officer's handling of affairs, the protocol of examination of the co-defendant 1 of the court below's handling of affairs, the protocol of the non-indicted 1 and the statement in Lee Jae-gu's office, and the records in the records of the non-indicted 1 and the non-indicted 1, the above defendant's statement in the court of the court below's ruling that the above defendant's co-defendant 1's above facts of crime were denied until the court of the court of the court below's first instance, and it cannot be viewed that the above defendant's co-defendant 1's above facts of crime committed the above crime are not enough to acknowledge the above facts.

In addition, even after examining the evidence at the time of the original trial, no evidence can be found to prove the above facts of crime. The fact that the court below recognized the above facts of crime solely based on the macroficial evidence is erroneous in the value judgment of evidence or found the facts without evidence, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment. It is reasonable to discuss this point.

(2) The court below held that the above defendant 1 and the co-defendant 1 of the court below entered into a sales contract with Handong-gu, the above co-defendant 1 of the court below, and decided to use the above 5,000,000 won out of the down payment, and take property back together, and that the defendant 3 should return the down payment to the co-defendant 1 of the court below and file a complaint with the defendant 1 of this case. If the down payment is not made, the above co-defendant 1 and 2 of the court below's judgment cannot be seen only if the down payment is not made, and eventually, the defendant 1 and 2 shall not move to the co-defendant 1 of the court below, and the defendant 1 and 2 shall be the co-defendant 1 of the court below's judgment, and the defendant 1 and 2 shall be the co-defendant 2 of the court below's land and shall be transferred to the above co-defendant 180,000 won, and the above fact shall be cancelled to the above co-defendant 181 and the above defendant 2008.

The evidence cited by the court below in recognizing the above crime of the defendant et al. is the same as the evidence stated in Paragraph (1) above. According to the records, the above defendant et al. denies the above defendant et al. to the court below's first time, and the defendant et al. stated in the police that the co-defendant 1 of the court below, who is his husband of the above defendant et al., knew the above defendant et al.'s co-defendant 1 knew the above fact that he could have deducted the above land. However, it is not sufficient to recognize the above crime because there is no mention how the above defendant et al. specifically controlled the above defendant et al., and the victim co-defendant 1 of the court below, the defendant et al., made a statement consistent with the above facts until the police first time, but according to the records, the defendant et al., who was the actual owner of the above 1,67 p.m., at the time of this case, did not request the court below to return part of the above contract to the defendant 1 et al.

The court below's finding the above facts of crime solely based on the macroficial evidence shall be deemed to have committed an unlawful act affecting the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts against the rules of evidence.

(3) The court below acknowledged that Co-defendant 1, 4, 5, and 6 of the court below's decision and Co-defendant 1 of the court below's decision made an open offering to embezzlement of the above land by providing Co-defendant 1 and 2 of the court below's decision as security for the loan obligation against the above Co-defendant 1, 2 of the court below's joint defendant 5, and 6 of the court below's decision as security against the above land borrowed from the defendant 5, 6 between December 6, 1980 and October 23, 1981, the above land was settled prior to the time of original suit and the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the name of defendant 5 and 6 of the above land pursuant to the above protocol on March 15, 1982, and applied the legal provisions on the joint principal offense of embezzlement against the above defendant et al.

On the other hand, in a case where the trustee in the title of the registration of real estate transfers it to a third party without the consent of the title truster, and the transferee or the intermediary introduced it to the third party, even though he was aware of such fact, he cannot be the joint principal offender of the crime of embezzlement unless he conspireds to acquire it in fake and illegal manner with the trustee from the beginning. In this case, the fact that the above defendant knew that the land at the time of this case was held in title trust with the co-defendant 1 of the court below cannot be the joint principal offender of the crime of embezzlement of the court below on the sole basis that the above defendant, etc. knew that the land at the time of this case was held in title trust with the co-defendant 1 of the court below. Thus, it is difficult to regard that the above defendant, etc. conspired from the beginning to acquire

The evidence cited by the court below in recognizing the above facts of crime by the defendant et al. is the same as the evidence mentioned in Paragraph (1) above, and considering the records, the above defendant et al. denies it from the police to the original trial, and the co-defendant 1 of the original trial seems to correspond to the above facts of crime from the police to the original trial. However, according to the records, the co-defendant 1 of the original trial borrowed money from his own house before this case and invested in the commercial building construction executed by the defendant 2 of the original trial. Since it is necessary to secure loan of funds necessary for the above construction from the co-defendant 2 of the original trial to offer the above land as security, it is hard to recognize the facts that the co-defendant 2 of the original trial requested the introduction of funds to the defendant 4 and gave consent to this, and thus, it is hard to see the above facts that the co-defendant 1 of the original trial made a false statement in the name of the defendant 1 of the above co-defendant 1 of the original trial against the above land.

In addition, even after examining the evidence at the time of the original trial, the above facts of crime cannot be found. The fact that the court below found the above facts of crime only with the macroficial evidence shall be deemed to have affected the conclusion of the judgment by mismisunderstanding the facts in violation of the rules of evidence and thereby the argument on this point is reasonable

(4) Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to Suwon District Court Panel Division, which is the lower court, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Jeong Tae-tae (Presiding Justice)