Second, Defendant B, C, and D have legitimate loans by lending funds to Defendant A from time to time.

Nevertheless, the lower court found Defendant B, etc. guilty of the facts charged of this case on the premise that the surplus after distribution was owned by the victimized company, and that Defendant B, etc.’s claim was false bonds, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. A person who has acquired a right after completing the registration of transfer of ownership after the seizure took effect in the auction procedure for the real estate held by a right holder with respect to a surplus after the distribution takes effect, may not assert the acquisition of the right to request auction to the creditor. However, other third parties including not only the former owner but also the participants in the execution after the above entry may assert the right, and as such, the balance remaining after the distribution of dividends shall be delivered to the said third party (see Supreme Court Decision 90DaKa2403, supra). Therefore, the Defendants’ mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, which are the share of Defendant A, not the share of the damage company, are without merit.

B. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court as to whether the attempted crime was established, namely, Defendant B’s pro-friendly relationship with Defendant A, Defendant D’s denial of Defendant A, Defendant C’s pro-friendly relationship with Defendant D, the Defendants are not able to submit all objective evidentiary materials on the loan claim they claim, and the Defendants have long leased and exchanged in cash.