The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul Northern District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is that: (a) the Defendant offered his father’s share as collateral and borrowed money; (b) the share of D forest 24,744 square meters (hereinafter “D land after the division”) was not sufficient for collateral value; (c) the Defendant actually divided the shares of 24,744 square meters of O forest 24,744 square meters (hereinafter “O land after the division”) rather than A’s ownership, and the share of 24,748 square meters (hereinafter “A land after the division”) was owned by A; (d) 24,748 square meters of the O forest 24,748 square meters, among the O land after the division under a title trust upon request of A; and (e) the Defendant intended to offer the money as collateral and borrow money by borrowing the share of 24,744 percent of the O land after the division; and (e) in collusion with the Defendant 15 (hereinafter “victims”), 24,748,6848.

2. On this issue, the court below held that, in a case where ownership of each specific part of the land has been separately owned and registered through a mutual title trust, if the land was divided, the mutual title trust relationship exists as it existed after the registration of co-ownership of each divided land is transcribed, and in the sectionally owned co-ownership relationship, each co-owner agrees to dispose of each specific part freely, and thus, each co-owner may dispose of his/her specific part and freely transfer his/her share of co-ownership registration corresponding thereto. As long as mutual title trust relationship exists, as long as mutual title trust relationship exists, the parties A and the victims agreed to dispose of each specific part freely, in collusion with A.