The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daegu District Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the grounds of appeal by the defendant

A. In the case of a so-called bilateral trust in violation of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name (hereinafter “Real Estate Real Name Act”), a trust agreement under the name of a contracting person and the delegation agreement incidental thereto, real estate under the name of a trust agreement under the name of a contracting person, and the agreement on the refund of the proceeds from the disposal of the disposal of the property under the name of a trust agreement are all null and void. Moreover, a de facto consignment relationship that may be alleged to exist on the basis of an invalid title trust agreement between a nominal truster and a trustee is merely an unlawful relationship that constitutes a crime against the law of real estate real name, and cannot be deemed as a new trust that is valuable to protect under the Criminal Act, and a nominal trustee is in the position of “a person who keeps another’s property” in relation to a nominal truster on the ground that there

As such, even if a nominal trustee arbitrarily disposes of the real estate entrusted to him/her, the crime of embezzlement is not established in relation to the nominal truster (see Supreme Court Decision 2016Do18761, Feb. 18, 2021). (b) The lower court affirmed the first instance judgment that found the Defendant guilty of part of the charges of this case, on the ground that, in the case of a nominal trust, the nominal trustee received compensation for the acquisition of the right to some shares of the instant land held in trust under the name of the nominal trustee on the premise that he/she was in the status of a custodian based on the consignment relationship between the nominal trustee and the nominal trustee, and that the act of refusing to return, or discretionary consumption

However, in light of the above legal principles, the defendant, a trustee, is in the position of a person who maintains the compensation for expropriation based on the acquisition of the land of this case or the consultation thereon.