Defendant

All appeals filed against the defendant A and the prosecutor B are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. A. The secured claim based on the provisional registration of the right to claim ownership transfer (hereinafter “each provisional registration of this case”) established by the provisional registration authority G in accordance with 102, 202, and 402 of H lending, a multi-family housing located in H at Defendant A (hereinafter “the instant lending”), was not actually nonexistent, and even if so, there was no such a claim.

Even if Defendant A explained from Defendant B that “each of the instant provisional registrations was provisionally registered for the purpose of preventing the execution of seizure by the construction cost business operators, and would be by means of false declaration of conspiracy that does not have any actual secured claim,” Defendant A recognized that there was no secured claim.

Accordingly, in order to file a lawsuit for cancellation of provisional registration, Defendant A prepared and delivered a written statement and a written confirmation stating that each of the provisional registrations of this case was caused by false conspiracy with Defendant B (hereinafter “instant statement and written confirmation”) from Defendant B, and submitted it as evidence in the above lawsuit, and Defendant A did not intend to obtain judgment by deceiving the court, knowing that there was no secured claim of each of the provisional registrations of this case.

B. The court below acquitted Defendant B, the title trustee of the instant loan of this case, on the ground that it is difficult for Defendant A to cancel the provisional registration of security established in accordance with 201, 301, 401, 501, and 601 of the instant loan loan of this case against Defendant B, the title truster of the instant loan of this case, on the ground that the cancellation of the provisional registration of security loan of this case does not constitute another person’s business to be performed by Defendant B, and it is difficult for Defendant B to regard that the provisional registration of security is to be performed by Defendant A, and the provisional registration of security is to be performed by Defendant B as delegated by Defendant A. The court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the person who administers another person’s business. 2) The court below sentenced Defendant B to an unfair sentencing of unfair sentencing of unfair sentencing