According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the fact that the defendant, in collusion with Co-Defendant 1 and 2 of the court below, prepared a false promissory note and a notarial deed with executory power over the portion of the above real estate, and filed an application for compulsory auction, and had the co-defendant 2 of the court below completed the registration of transfer of ownership under the name of the same person, by selling the instant real estate owned by the defendant under title trust to the non-indicted Kim Jong-ho and receiving the down payment and intermediate payment, and not receiving any balance, and then selling it again to the non-indicted 1 and 2.

Examining the evidence admitted by the court below based on the records, there is no error of incomplete deliberation or violation of the rules of evidence, as alleged in the arguments, in the measures that employ each of the statements of the defendant in investigation agencies, investigation agencies, and the court of first and second instances in the court of first and second instances, and that there is no violation of the rules of evidence against the rules of evidence.

2. We examine the ground of appeal No. 3.

First, in order for a real estate seller to establish a crime of breach of trust by failing to fulfill his duty to cooperate in the registration of the buyer, the duty to cooperate in the registration should occur in detail, and the specific duty to cooperate takes place simultaneously with the payment of the purchase price. Thus, as long as the Defendant failed to receive the balance from Kim Ho, the buyer of the real estate of this case, even though the duty to cooperate in the registration did not take place, the establishment of the crime of breach of trust has been recognized.

However, if there is no special agreement between the seller of real estate and the buyer to receive the down payment and the intermediate payment, there is a duty to cooperate in the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the buyer at the same time with the receipt of the balance (see Supreme Court Decision 83Do2057, Oct. 11, 1983). Thus, if it is impossible for the buyer to implement the registration of transfer of ownership to the first buyer or the former buyer who made an agreement on the registration of transfer of ownership due to the disposal of the said real estate to a third party, due to the disposal of the said real estate by the latter buyer to a third party

Second, the author argues that the non-indicted Kim Jong, the purchaser of the real estate of this case, sold a part of it to the non-indicted long-term use, but the defendant did not have an agreement to omit the intermediate registration, thus recognizing the crime of breach of trust on the premise that the defendant had a duty to cooperate in the registration of the above long-term use, is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles

However, the court below recognized that there was an agreement between the defendant and the above Kim Jong-ho to omit interim registration, and examining the records, the above decision of the court below is legitimate, and therefore, the above argument is not

Third, since the title holder of the instant real estate has been against the non-indicted, the obligation to cooperate in the registration of ownership transfer is also against the defendant, and even if the defendant is not the defendant, it is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles on the title trust, the obligation to cooperate in registration, and the breach of trust.

However, as determined by the court below, the real estate of this case is owned by the defendant, and is merely a title trust in the future of this substitute, and since the defendant himself sold this to the above Kim Jong-ho, the obligation of the buyer to register the ownership transfer of the above real estate shall be borne by the defendant who is the seller, and therefore the above discussion is groundless.

3. Ultimately, the appeal is dismissed as without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Il-young (Presiding Justice)

The transfer of a judge of the Supreme Court is impossible due to retirement of the judge of the Supreme Court.