사기등
All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.
1. Of the facts charged in the instant case, the lower court rendered a judgment of conviction on the remainder of the facts charged, including the fraud on M No. 103 and the attempted fraud on March 7, 2014 with respect to the obstruction of one’s auction on March 7, 2014. The Defendant appealed on the guilty portion, and the Prosecutor appealed on the ground of misapprehending the legal doctrine as to the obstruction of one’s auction on March 7, 2014 among the acquitted portion, and did not appeal as to the fraud on M No. 103 against M No. 103. Accordingly, according to the indivisible principle of appeal, the fraud on M No. 103 among the acquitted portion was also tried to be tried at the trial along with the guilty portion, but the part was already exempted from the object of attack and defense between the parties.
Therefore, the judgment of the court below is in accordance with the conclusion of the judgment of the court below concerning the fraud among the above acquittal portion, and only the obstruction of auction among the guilty portion and the acquittal portion of the judgment of the court below.
2. Summary of reasons for appeal;
A. As to the interference with the auction by the prosecutor (misunderstanding of the legal principles) on March 7, 2014, since the registration of false provisional seizure was completed, the fairness in the preparation of dividend table is impeded when the creditor of the provisional seizure is in the position of receiving dividends, and the registration of provisional seizure itself may affect the appraisal of the value of the real estate, registration of false provisional seizure constitutes an act that is likely to interfere with a fair free competition that forms an appropriate price.
Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
B. Defendant 1) In light of the following circumstances, the lower court found Defendant 1 guilty of the facts charged in the instant case, which erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
A) On M No. 103, a lease contract is actually concluded between I and P.