The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. As to the main facts charged in the appeal grounds, since the defendant and the victim have been established to run a joint business such as real estate sales business, the defendant is fully recognized that there was a duty of managing the business with the victim to run the joint business with the victim. Thus, the main facts charged that the defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the third party under the name of the defendant's wife F, who is the third party, is a breach of trust.

As to the conjunctive facts charged, the Defendant and the victim are merely used as a means to avoid applying the law to the partnership company and have the external form of a legal entity. As such, the Defendant can be deemed to have embezzled the instant land, which is the business property substantially combined with the victim by transferring the registration of ownership transfer of the instant land, and further, it is remarkably unreasonable to determine that the crime of embezzlement cannot be established in accordance with the real estate title trust doctrine. Accordingly, the ancillary facts can be sufficiently recognized as embezzlement.

Nevertheless, the lower court determined that all the Defendant was innocent on the primary and conjunctive charges of this case. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine and misconception of facts.

2. Determination

A. As to the primary facts charged, the lower court held that the victim was not an executive officer of the company of this case, and thus did not have any authority over the business of the company of this case, and that the company of this case was merely a company established by the defendant regardless of the purchase of the land of this case around October 2012, and the victim was notified by the defendant during construction of the building on the land of this case, and did not participate in the above construction.