The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer under the name of the Defendant, the real estate purchased by D pursuant to the so-called title trust agreement with D pursuant to the so-called intermediate omission registration. Thus, even if the Defendant disposed of the said real estate contrary to the above title trust agreement

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged and the summary of the facts charged in the instant case’s judgment were as follows: “Around March 23, 2001, the Defendant embezzled each share of KRW 20,475/62,070, respectively, of KRW 3,968 square meters and G forest 2,239 square meters purchased from the victim E from the victim D, under a title trust and completed the registration of ownership transfer under the name of the Defendant, while the Defendant was in custody for the victim on August 28, 2009, each of the said shares was sold to H at will at KRW 45 million.

"..." The court below found the prosecutor guilty of the facts charged in this case by taking account of the evidence presented by the prosecutor.

B. 1) The subject of embezzlement as prescribed by Article 355(1) of the relevant legal doctrine ought to be the person who keeps another’s property, and whether the subject of embezzlement is another’s property ought to be determined by the Civil Act, the Commercial Act, and other substantive laws. Inasmuch as the custody in the crime of embezzlement refers to the possession of property through a consignment relationship, the custodian of the property and the owner of the property (or the person who has other principal rights) should have legal or de facto consignment relationship between the custodian of the property and the owner of the

This trust relationship can be established not only by a contract such as loan of use, lease, delegation, etc. but also by administrative management, customs, cooking, and trust rule. However, in light of the fact that the intrinsic nature of embezzlement is to illegally acquire another person's goods entrusted based on a trust relationship, it is reasonable to determine that trust relationship is a trust relationship with a value to protect the crime of embezzlement.

However, there is a problem.