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

1. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant entered into a title trust agreement with the victim, around 2005, about the 1,653 square meters in E salt farm (hereinafter “the instant salt farm”) that the victim C purchased from D, with respect to the name of the Defendant. Accordingly, on December 30, 2005, the registration of ownership transfer with the Defendant was made on the instant salt farm.

Around July 19, 2010, the Defendant embezzled the instant salt farm in an unsound amount equivalent to the market price by completing a registration of creation of a collateral security holder F and the maximum debt amount of KRW 300 million prior to the instant salt, while keeping the instant salt farm for the victim.

2. Although the Defendant alleged that the Defendant registered the establishment of a mortgage near the instant salt farm without C’s consent, the Defendant cannot be deemed to be in the custodian of the instant salt farm, so the crime of embezzlement is not established.

3. Relevant legal principles

A. Where a sales contract is concluded with the purport of excluding or evading permission for land within an area subject to permission for a land transaction contract under the National Land Planning and Utilization Act (hereinafter “Act”), the contract shall be finally null and void at the time of conclusion pursuant to Article 118(6) of the Act, and the act of excluding or evading such permission shall include not only the act of falsely preparing the contract so that it does not require permission for the land transaction contract, but also the act of falsely preparing the contract so that it can obtain permission for the land transaction contract in a normal manner.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 90Da12243 Decided December 24, 1991, and Supreme Court Decision 2009Da96328 Decided June 10, 201, etc.) B.

On the other hand, in the case of embezzlement, the custodian's status is not based on possession, but it is effective to dispose of the real estate to a third party.