The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Since the instant land is owned by the Defendant that the Defendant was placed in title trust in the victim’s future, the selling price of the said land is the Defendant’s refusal to return this price, and thus, the crime of embezzlement is not established. However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the credibility of the victim’s statement and thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine by dismissing the application of the hearsay rule to the evidence documents submitted by the Defendant as evidence.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances revealed from the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below regarding the assertion of mistake of facts. ① The Defendant, in the name of the victim, was the victim of the land in Seocheon-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, which was purchased with the land in the name of the victim in the name of the victim, and KRW 5,921,510 of the compensation paid to the Defendant in the course of expropriation of the land in around 2007. ② The sales contract written by the Defendant, when selling the land in this case to G, stated that “this contract shall be entered into with E, but it shall be deemed that A shall be held responsible for all overall registration or administrative problems.” At the time of entering into the above sales contract, it appears that the Defendant was responsible for the buyer by stating “A” and the Defendant was involved in the sale and purchase of the real estate in the above investigation agency at the time of the purchase and sale contract.