The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daejeon District Court Panel Division.

1. The grounds of appeal are examined.

The lower court acknowledged the following facts.

① The Defendant and the victim C, D, and E purchased a total of 4,396 square meters of land located in F, J, K, K, M, N,O, P, Q, Q, and R (hereinafter referred to as “F”) in the name of the seller in accordance with the trust agreement entered into between the Defendant and the victims, and completed the registration of the transfer of ownership, one-third of each of which is an interim omission from the seller, under the name of the trustee, the victim D, and E, respectively, before the division and merger of the land located in F, J, K, K, K, AO, AP, Q, and R.

② After purchasing G 1,921 square meters from AK, the Defendant and victims completed the registration of the transfer of ownership in the name of the seller, who is the trustee in the name of the seller, pursuant to the trust agreement entered into between the Defendant and victims with respect to the 407 square meters of land divided from the said land.

(3) The Defendant and victims have owned a 172m2 m2 divided from G 1,921m2 divided from G 1,921m2, one-half share in AM and X.

H An exchange with 180 square meters (hereinafter “exchange land”) and completed the registration of transfer of ownership in the future of the Defendant, the trustee of title from AM and X, pursuant to the trust agreement entered into between the Defendant and the victims.

Based on such factual basis, the lower court determined that the instant trust constituted a trust in the name of the so-called intermediate omission registration type.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant legal doctrine and the evidence duly admitted by the first instance court, the lower court’s determination on the above facts is justifiable. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of logic and experience and exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation, or by misapprehending

2. The decision shall be made ex officio;

A. The principal agent of embezzlement under Article 355(1) of the Criminal Act must be a person who keeps another’s property, and is another’s property.