A. In fact, Defendant A borrowed KRW 1.5 million from the injured party in around 2013, and repaid KRW 1.4 million to the injured party. Around July 2015, the injured party received the compulsory execution procedure (No. 2288, Gwangju District Court 2015, 2288) to distribute KRW 428,240, and all of the loan obligations were extinguished.

Therefore, the lower court convicted the Defendants of all the charges of this case even though the Defendants conspired to enforce compulsory execution or attempted fraud on September 2015 (hereinafter “instant compulsory execution”). As such, the Defendants filed a lawsuit of demurrer against the third party (hereinafter “third party’s lawsuit of demurrer against the Gwangju District Court 2015 group 41812”) to prevent the victim’s compulsory execution, the lower court convicted the Defendants of all the charges of this case. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

B. The sentencing of the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts, the lower court’s determination A) based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated, the following circumstances, namely, ① the facts established by a civil judgment does not have to be detained by a court in a judgment on other civil or criminal cases, etc., but, barring any special circumstance, Defendant B filed a lawsuit of demurrer against the third party by asserting that the instant movable was his/her own possession, and in the foregoing case, Defendant B received KRW 810,00 from Defendant A and transferred the ownership of the said movable property to Defendant A, and thus, the owner of the said movable property dismissed Defendant B’s claim on the ground that the said movable was C.