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

Judgment ex officio is made.

1. Where a truster who purchased real estate after entering into a sales contract with the seller has completed the registration of transfer of ownership from the seller under the name of the trustee without registering transfer of ownership in his/her name, pursuant to a trust agreement entered into with the trustee, the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the trustee under the name of the actual right holder (hereinafter “Real Estate Real Name Act”) is null and void pursuant to the main sentence of Article 4(2) of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate Real Name (hereinafter “Real Estate Real Name Act”), and the seller

A nominal truster only has a right to claim for the registration of transfer of ownership against a seller, but does not have ownership of the real estate in a trust, and the title trustee does not have a duty to transfer the ownership of the real estate directly to the nominal truster pursuant to Article 4(1) of the Real Estate Real Name Act. Therefore, a fiduciary relationship between the nominal truster and the nominal trustee cannot be acknowledged. In relation to the nominal truster, the nominal trustee is in the position of “the person who keeps another’s property,” which is the subject of embezzlement as provided by Article 355(1) of the Criminal Act.

subsection (b) of this section.

Therefore, even if a trustee arbitrarily disposes of the real estate held in the name of the trustee, the crime of embezzlement is not established in relation to the nominal truster (see Supreme Court Decision 2014Do6992, May 19, 2016). 2. (1) The first instance judgment was rendered on the following grounds: (a) the victim purchased Mana Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Bana” in the first instance judgment; and (b) completed the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the trustee; and (c) the Defendant conspired with I and D to obtain the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the beneficiary; and (d) the Defendant was guilty of the crime of embezzlement of the instant friendship owned by the victim by taking advantage of the registration of transfer of ownership in the first instance. (b) The lower court did not err by misapprehending the first instance judgment.