A. On April 20, 2018, Defendant A’s completion of the registration of transfer of ownership on trust in the name of real estate name, Defendant A, as to the trust in the name of real estate name, constitutes a violation of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name. However, since the right to claim transfer of ownership does not fall under a real right, Defendant A’s right to claim transfer of ownership in the name of the trustee on June 9, 2015, and Defendant C on April 20, 2018, including the right to claim transfer of ownership in the name of the trustee on April 20, 2018, additional registration for transfer of ownership, such as the right to request transfer of ownership, does not entail any change in real rights, does not constitute “registration of real right to real estate in the name of the trustee according to the trust agreement under the name of the trustee” prohibited by Article 3(1) of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged is erroneous.

B) As to fraud, registration of the right to request for registration of transfer of ownership in the future B constitutes provisional registration to preserve order for the purpose of preserving property from seizure, etc. caused by tax delinquency. In such cases, if the principal registration based on the above provisional registration is made, registration of seizure after provisional registration shall be cancelled.

Defendant

A, even if the registration of seizure of the forest land of this case was completed, the above provisional registration was made in the future B, and the attachment registration was known to be entirely cancelled, and there was a criminal intent of fraud against the above defendant.

subsection (b) of this section.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged is erroneous.

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court to Defendant A (a crime No. 1 in its holding: imprisonment with prison labor for two months, and a crime No. 2 in its holding: imprisonment with prison labor for one year and eight months) is too unreasonable.

B. One-year imprisonment sentenced by the lower court to Defendant D is too much.