The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

The summary of the grounds for appeal does not constitute a “person who keeps another’s property” in the crime of embezzlement even if the Defendant was entrusted with the title of 9,059 square meters (excluding approximately 290 square meters, approximately 958 square meters, who is the Defendant’s possession; hereinafter “the instant forest”) out of 10,017 square meters of forest land in Nam-gun, Namsung-gun, Namsung-gun, by a trust without intermediate registration.

Nevertheless, the court below found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

Judgment

The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is the person who served as the former Saemaul leader of the Masung-gun D.

On December 3, 1974, the Defendant entered into a trust agreement with the above D Village Association and entered into a title trust agreement with respect to the forest land of this case owned by D Village E, which was owned by D Village Association on December 3, 1974, and entered into a trust agreement with the above D Village Association on January 24, 1980, and entered into a trust agreement with the Defendant at the time of the transfer of the forest.

G Registration of transfer of ownership was made in common name.

The Defendant, on June 27, 2012, sold the said real estate to H on his own on the part of the victim D community, and embezzled it.

The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged by comprehensively taking account of the macroscopic evidence.

(c)

The principal agent of embezzlement as prescribed by Article 355(1) of the Criminal Act, which is the judgment of the party concerned, shall be a person who keeps another’s property, and shall be determined pursuant to the Civil Act, the Commercial Act, and other substantive laws, whether it is another’s property (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2003Do3516, Oct. 10, 2003; 2009Do1373, May 13, 2010). Inasmuch as the custody in the crime of embezzlement means possession of property through a consignment relationship, the custodian of the property, the owner of the property, or the owner of the property (or any other person who has the principal right) should have a legally or de facto fiduciary relationship (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2003Do4828, Sept. 9, 2005; 209Do924, Jun. 24, 2010).