1. According to the Criminal Code, embezzlement refers to subjective constitutional elements that a person who has lawful possession of property belonging to another and objective constitutional elements where a person takes it for the purpose of exercising unlawful control over or with the behaviors to handle, use or gain profit. The ownership stands when the thing of embezzlement is owned due to legal or contract cause. 2. According to Article 765 of the Civil Code, the owner of a thing has the right, within the limits of the Acts and regulations, to use it, to profit from it, and to dispose of it freely, and to exclude the interference from others. In the first paragraph of Article 767: the owner of a thing has the right to demand its return from anyone, who possesses it without authority or who seizes it. In the middle paragraph: Where his ownership is interfered, he is entitled to claim the removal of the interference (the right to claim for ownership return); in the last paragraph: where the ownership might be interfered with, he is entitled to claim the prevention of such interference(the right to claim the prevention of interference). 3. If any person reports vehicles parked on his/her private land and between the owner and the user, there has been no legal or contractual basis for the owner to change his/her ownership. Accordingly, it is different from the constitutional elements of embezzlement under the criminal code. This case involves issues of ownership interference and belongs to disputes under the civil code. For the person whose land is occupied shall follow civil litigation procedure to claim his/her rights as stated in the middle paragraph of Article 767, “the right to claim the removal of the interference.”