The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

Around March 201, the Defendant in the factory room of the public lawsuit carried out the business of constructing five Dong-type housing units (GA, B, C, D, and E) with the total project cost of KRW 3 billion on the F-F-type land in Sungsung-si, the Defendant used the name of Defendant He and invested the amount of KRW 188,50,000 won in the promotion of the purchase of the site and the authorization, permission, completion, etc. of the project. The Defendant was in charge of the above D accounting, and the victim was in charge of the above D accounting, and entered into a trade contract between I and E on November 29, 201 with the Defendant and completed the registration of transfer of ownership to H, who is the spouse.

On August 16, 2012, the Defendant: (a) maintained the ownership preservation registration and ownership have been completed in the name of H, and (b) agreed with the buyer J on the said G G A Dong and site (Seoul Special Metropolitan City F) where the buyer’s ownership was transferred to the J during the period of transfer registration. (c) On September 16, 2013, the Defendant was able to request the victim to settle the said D Accounting Affairs, including the refund of investment funds. (d) around September 16, 2013, the Defendant was able to receive the deposit from the said G C, D, and E, and to cover the refund of investment funds.

On September 30, 2013, the Defendant arbitrarily sold L and M in the purchase price of KRW 582 million from July 17, 2014 to L and M in the purchase price of KRW 300,000 on September 1, 2014, on the following grounds: (a) around July 17, 2014, the registration of ownership transfer was completed with respect to the 1/2 shares among the buildings of the 4th floor building of the above G A and the 463 square meters in the said H ownership.

Accordingly, the Defendant embezzled the property owned by the victim under the nominal trust.

The Defendant’s assertion by defense counsel is not in the position of the custodian of each real estate stated in the above facts charged, and thus, cannot constitute embezzlement.

Judgment

1. Relevant legal principles

A. The trustee is entrusted with the title of the trust in the so-called intermediate omitted name.