The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The Defendant, not guilty, publicly notified the summary of the judgment of this case.

1. The gist of the grounds of appeal is that the purchase and sale contract or substance is a security contract to protect the victim's investment amounting to KRW 850,00,000,000 paid to J Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "J") and the victim's duty to manage the real estate of this case on behalf of the victim, even though the defendant had been due to due care as a good manager of a good manager, thereby causing the loss of the victim's security for KRW 85,50,000,00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000).

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts against the rules of evidence, on the ground that there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge the defendant's intention of breach of trust.

2. An ex officio determination prosecutor shall be based on the facts charged about the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation) in the first instance, but in the first instance, he applied for the amendment of the indictment adding the facts charged about the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation) to the facts charged, and this court notified the decision to permit it, and

However, the judgment of the court below has the above reasons for reversal.

Even if the prosecutor's argument of mistake of facts regarding the primary facts charged is still subject to the judgment of this court, it will be examined.

3. Judgment on the primary facts charged

A. The Defendant’s summary of the facts charged is the instant real estate at the D Office located in Gangnam-gu Seoul on August 9, 2011.