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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to embezzlement

A. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court determined as follows.

1) The lower court determined as follows: (a) Defendant A’s each of the instant real estates (hereinafter “each of the instant real estates”) with the victim’s husband F, G, H, I, J, K, K,O, M, and N under the name of the victim’s husband F.

(2) After selling the real estate of this case and being entrusted with the purchase of the house located in Incheon City with the purchase price, the Defendants conspired to sell 580,00,000 won which was paid as the purchase price of the “house 4,000,000 in Seocheon-gu, Incheon Metropolitan City” (hereinafter “the purchase price”) and 43,239,239,970 won, including various taxes and brokerage fees from the purchase of the house, and 85,60,000 won which was remitted to the victims, and 241,660,030 won, excluding 85,000,000 won which was remitted to the victim, and then embezzled it without returning it to the victim at around that time. Meanwhile, the lower court rejected the Defendants’ consent to the sale price of the real estate as the sale price for the reason that the seller and the victim did not have any difference between the sale price and the sale price for the real estate.

B. Examining the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the first instance court, the lower court was justifiable to have determined that the victim cannot be deemed to have delegated or consented to sell each of the instant real estate to the Defendants by way of recognition work, based on the circumstances indicated in its reasoning.

C. However, the lower court, at the total of KRW 949,900,000 in the purchase price of each of the instant real estate, and all of the taxes from the purchase price of the housing in Incheon City, and from the purchase of the housing.