The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. We examine this part of the grounds of appeal on the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) ex officio.

A. Of the facts charged in the instant case, the summary of the charge of the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) (hereinafter “Special Economic Crimes Act”) was as follows: “The Defendant, around 2002, completed the registration of ownership transfer of nine parcels of land, including the size of 1,931 square meters, and one bonds of a building purchased by the victim under the title trust agreement with the victim, and kept the victim for the sake of the victim. On June 10, 2005, the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer of each of the above real estate without the victim’s consent on June 10, 2005, with the maximum debt amount of 26,000,000 won, and the market value of the above E and other seven parcels of land was 724,379,000 won in total, and the remaining two parcels of land and 100,000 won in total, more than the maximum debt amount of 0,000 won in each of the above real estate.”

B. However, the crime of embezzlement under Article 355(1) of the Criminal Act is established when the custodian of another’s property embezzled or refuses to return the property, and the amount of the property is not at issue. However, the crime of embezzlement under Article 355(1) of the Criminal Act is committed with respect to the crime of violation