The court below held that a contract to establish a mortgage becomes effective when the person who established the right to collateral security and the owner of the real estate subject to the establishment of the right to collateral security, and that there is no agreement or consent with the debtor even when the establishment of the right to collateral security is intended to secure a third party's obligation. Thus, even if the person who established the right to collateral security and the person who established the right to collateral security in collusion concludes a contract to establish the right to collateral security with an obligor and exercises it, the above registration had an intention to be made between the parties to the contract. Thus, the crime of false entry or exercise of the right to collateral security is not established even if the above debtor's name is forged. Further, if the owner of the real estate and the person who established the right to collateral security have agreed to establish the right to collateral security on the ground that he did not consent to the establishment of the right to collateral security, the defendant prepared a false statement in the name of the proprietor of the right to collateral security (which appears to be the purport of the person who applied for the establishment of the right to collateral security, and provided the same document to the defendant had no agreement with the president.

Since the registration of the establishment of a nearby mortgage takes place on the basis of an agreement between the creditor who is the person entitled to registration and the person liable for registration and the third party who is not the person liable for registration, even if the registration was made on the register as the debtor for the convenience of the establishment of a new document, if it was made by an agreement between the parties to the contract, the parties would have had the intent to make the registration completed such registration. Moreover, since the defendant's above third party is the regular director of the village safe as stated in the judgment of the defendant, the reason why the above third party is the debtor cannot obtain a loan from the defendant, the defendant's own debt in the form under the above safe's understanding is merely a type of punishment, punishment, or relative name of the defendant who is the third party, and the above third party's debt cannot be deemed to have been secured, and in this case, the defendant's failure to enter the original copy of a notarial deed is not established. Therefore, the measures that the court below found the defendant not guilty

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

It is impossible to sign and seal because it is an overseas business trip that is transferred to the Supreme Court judge of the Lee Jong-sung (Presiding Justice) and Lee Jong-sung (Presiding Justice).