The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Error of facts and misapprehension of legal principles regarding the title trust of this case: ① A victim E purchased the real estate of this case from H, a representative of the owner I, around June 2009; ② A victim E who purchased the real estate of this case shall have the same effect.

7. Around 21, around 21, the fact that the instant real estate was under title trust with the Defendant at a certified judicial scrivener office, and ③ H was aware that the victim, who was the buyer, was not subject to the transfer of ownership to the Defendant on the ground that he was a bad credit holder, and the registration of the Defendant was transferred, the instant title trust is not under title trust with the third party, but under title trust with the third party.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination on the misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles leads to the following circumstances: (a) whether a title trust agreement is a three-party registered title trust or a contract title trust is determined by whom the contracting party becomes final; (b) even if a contracting party is deemed a title trustee, it would be a three-party registered title trust if it is deemed a contracting party. Therefore, if it is acknowledged that a contract is concluded with the intent to directly contribute to the legal effect of the contract to the title truster, not the title trustee, the title truster is a contracting party, and thus, the title trust relationship in this case should be deemed a three-party registered title trust (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da52799, Oct. 28, 2010). In other words, (c) the victim concluded a sales contract with H, an agent of I on June 18, 2009, and (d) the victim merely purchased the instant real estate and sold the Defendant’s right to dispose of it under the name of the Defendant.