The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. In a case where a title truster, who purchased real estate after entering into a sales contract with a seller, completes the registration of ownership transfer from the seller to the title trustee immediately pursuant to a title trust agreement entered into with the title trustee without completing the registration of ownership transfer under his/her own name, the registration of ownership transfer under the name of the title trustee is null and void pursuant to the main sentence of Article 4(2) of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name (hereinafter “Real Estate Real Name Act”), and the title truster holds the ownership of the real

In addition, the title trust agreement and the delegation agreement incidental thereto under Article 4(1) of the Real Estate Real Name Act are null and void, and the title trustee also bears the duty to transfer the ownership of real estate trusted directly to the title truster, and thus, the trust relationship between the title truster and the title trustee cannot be acknowledged. The actual consignment relationship, which may be asserted to exist between them, is merely an illegal relationship contrary to the Real Estate Real Name Act, and cannot be deemed a new trust worth protecting under the Criminal Act. Therefore, in relation to the title truster, the title trustee cannot be deemed to be in the position of “a person who keeps another’s property,” who is the subject of the crime of embezzlement as provided by

Therefore, even if such trustee disposes of the real estate held in title trust at will, the crime of embezzlement is not established in relation to the title truster.

(2) On May 19, 2016, the lower court, on the grounds indicated in its reasoning, determined that the Defendant would deliver the deposit to the account of the Defendant when the deposit for lease on the instant real estate is transferred to the Defendant’s account.