The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of the facts charged and the judgment of the court below

A. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant, around September 3, 2003, was aware that D had not completed the registration of ownership transfer for the apartment of 702,00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0000,000,000,000,000,000

After that, the above D had her former G reside in the apartment of this case, but the above G had much debt owed to H et al., so it transferred the apartment of this case to the victim around May 7, 2007 on the condition that the victim I (hereinafter "victim") would have paid off the above debt amounting to H et al., and thereby, the defendant had the apartment of this case stored the apartment of this case for the victim.

In this regard, the Defendant, among others, embezzled an amount equivalent to KRW 1.1 million in the market value of the instant apartment at a place of not more than the north-si, 2009 and sold it to J at will, and completed the registration of transfer of ownership on the instant apartment to J around April 22, 2010, by acquiring the instant apartment that had been kept in custody as above at a place of not more than 1.1 billion in the north-si, 2009.

B. The lower court’s judgment: (a) in order to establish embezzlement against the Defendant, the Defendant has ownership or other real rights to the instant apartment; and (b) the Defendant has the status as a custodian; and (c) in relation to the ownership of the instant real estate due to foreign factors prescribed in Article 1 of the Private International Act, such as that the instant apartment is located in China, etc., it should be determined based on the Real Rights Act of the People’s Republic of China, a Chinese civil law, pursuant to Articles 19 and 26(3) of the Private International Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do15350, Apr. 28,