This cannot be deemed to be for the purpose of tax evasion, evasion of compulsory execution, or avoidance of statutory restrictions that the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name, and thus, the fiduciary relationship between the D Village Association and the Defendant should be deemed to be based on trust worth protecting the Criminal Act.

Therefore, even though the Defendant’s refusal to return each of the lands of this case for the village community conference constituted embezzlement, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine that acquitted the facts charged of this case, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. The lower court found that the Defendant and D Village Association concluded a nominal trust agreement with respect to each of the instant lands, and the Defendant prepared a contract to purchase each of the instant lands from the former owners of each of the instant lands, and completed a registration for the transfer of ownership to each of the instant lands in the name of the Defendant. Based on its stated reasoning, D Village Association did not acquire and own ownership of each of the instant lands, and the Defendant is in the position of the trustee under the name of the title trustee under the name of the trust or the trust agreement under the name of the registry or the name of the contract without intermediate omission with D Village Association. However, in the middle omission registration trust or the trust agreement under the name of the name of the name of the nominal truster, the trustee cannot be deemed to fall under the person who keeps the property to the nominal truster. Thus, even if the name trust agreement between the Defendant and D Village Association