Of them, the violation of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name against Defendant A and Defendant B.

A. According to the prosecutor's evidence of misconception of facts against the Defendants, even if the facts that Defendant A was the actual owner of Etel two (hereinafter "each of the instant officetels"), the lower court acquitted all of the facts charged against Defendant A on a different premise, in collusion with Defendant A, a title truster, and acquitted Defendant B of violation of Article 7 (1) 1 of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder's Name (hereinafter "False Act"), thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. Defendant B, such as Defendant B’s assertion of mistake of facts against Defendant B, is obvious that at least the co-defendant C, who is a title trustee, violated Article 7(2) of the Fraudulent Act. Thus, the court below’s decision that found Defendant B not guilty of such reduction or not guilty without taking measures such as clarifying the changes in the indictment, etc., shall read it to the effect that it erred in the misapprehension of facts, etc.

error in the judgment of the court.

2. We examine ex officio the prosecutor’s grounds for appeal prior to the judgment ex officio.

① In the first instance trial, the Prosecutor changed the part of the last sentence part of the facts charged against Defendant A and B, “In collusion with the Defendants as a title truster, C as a title trustee, and Defendant B as a title trustee, in collusion with the above Defendants A and C, respectively, and applied for changes in the indictment adding “Article 7(2) of the Unfair Faith Act” to the applicable provisions of the Acts against Defendant B.

(C) Since the prosecutor's appeal has become final and conclusive separately due to the lack of appeal by the prosecutor, the application for changes in indictment to C is without intention, and thus, the defendant A and the defendant B are still simple, and the defendant B are children of the defendant B, and the defendant D is the senior co-employee relationship of the defendant A.

(1) Any person;