The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The part of the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Occupational Embezzlement) against the victim D clan belongs to the D clan, the registered titleholder, when the defendant donated the purchase fund to the victim D clan (hereinafter referred to as the "D clan"), and the ownership of the Suwon-gu H H forest (hereinafter referred to as the "H forest") purchased with the money was reverted to the D clan. Even if the defendant purchased the H forest not to contribute the purchase fund of H forest, and even if the purchase of the forest was title trust to the D clan, even if the H forest was held in title to the D clan, the title trust agreement becomes null and void after the grace period for the real name registration under the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder's Name (hereinafter referred to as the "Real Estate Real Name Registration Act"), and the right to claim the return of unjust enrichment that the defendant acquired was reverted to the D clan, and thus, the defendant's refusal to return the compensation for H forest belongs to the D clan. However, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts as to the facts charged of occupational embezzlement.

B. Since the part of embezzlement part of the embezzlement for the victim Kmpa clan divided into AP and AU forest (hereinafter “T forest”) that had an organic substance at the time the victim Kmpa clan (hereinafter “Kmpa clan”) purchased the money from the proceeds of sale or the Defendant’s contribution for the relocation of the cemetery in the Seocho-gu Seoul Seocho-gu X forest where the U.S. (hereinafter “Kmpa clan”) was a title trust with the members including the Defendant, the Defendant’s arbitrary use of the compensation for the expropriation of T forest also constitutes embezzlement. However, the lower court acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged of embezzlement on the ground that it is difficult for the lower court to conclude that T forest owned by the clan and owned by the defendant under title trust. Accordingly, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts.

2. Determination.