The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

In light of the details and attitude of the regulation on the trust relationship under the name of the person having the actual right to real estate (hereinafter “Real Estate Real Name Act”), in the case of a trust under the name of the person having the title transfer the title of the real estate owned to the trustee in violation of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate Real Name, the so-called bilateral trust that the person having the title transfers the title of the real estate under the name of the title to the trustee in violation of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate Real Name, the agreement on trust under the name of the

B. The de facto consignment relationship that a son may assert exists on the basis of an invalid title trust agreement between a nominal truster and a trustee is merely an illegal relationship that constitutes a crime against the law of real estate real name, and cannot be deemed as a new trust worth protecting the criminal law.

Therefore, the trustee is in the position of “a person who keeps another’s property” in relation to the nominal trustee, citing the existence of the duty of cancellation registration or the possibility of effective disposition by the nominal trustee.

shall not be deemed to exist.

Therefore, in the case of a bilateral trust in violation of the Real Estate Real Name Act, even if the nominal trustee arbitrarily disposes of the trusted real estate, the crime of embezzlement is not established in relation to the nominal truster (see Supreme Court Decision 2016Do18761, Feb. 18, 2021). The lower court, based on the circumstances stated in its reasoning, held that the Defendant, the nominal trustee, is in the position of “a person who keeps another’s property” in the crime of embezzlement against the victim, the nominal truster

Considering that it cannot be seen, the first instance judgment that acquitted the instant facts charged was affirmed.

In light of the aforementioned legal principles and records, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the establishment of nominal trust and embezzlement, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

Therefore, the appeal is therefore filed.