The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

In full view of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor including the Defendant’s statement to the investigative agency, etc., the facts charged in the instant case is found guilty to the effect that the Defendant embezzled the instant house under title trust while the Defendant kept the building of the second floor on the ground of Yangcheon-gu Seoul, Yangcheon-gu, Seoul (hereinafter “instant house”).

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending legal principles and misunderstanding facts that the housing in this case is owned by the E church, and thereby not concluding that the housing in this case is owned by the E church.

The subject of embezzlement as prescribed by Article 355(1) of the Criminal Act concerning ownership ownership of the instant house shall be the person who keeps another’s property, and shall be determined by the Civil Act, the Commercial Act, and other substantive laws, whether it is another’s property.

(1) A person who has constructed a building in his/her own effort and materials on October 10, 2003 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2003Do3516, Oct. 10, 2003; 2009Do1373, May 13, 2010). Generally, a person who has constructed a building in his/her own effort and materials acquires the ownership of the building. However, even if the contractor completes a building in his/her own effort and materials, if it appears that the contractor agreed that the ownership of the building completed is attributed to the contractor, such as granting a construction permit under the name of the contractor and the contractor, even if the contractor completes a building in his/her own effort and materials, the ownership of the building should be reverted to the contractor (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 91Da34790, Mar. 27, 199; 96Da24804, Sept. 20, 196).

Supreme Court Decision 200