All appeals filed by the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of the prosecutor’s grounds for appeal (misunderstanding the facts as to the part 78,95 of the judgment of the court below as to the high-liability 78,95);

A. In light of the evidence presented during the litigation process, such as civil judgment and application for provisional disposition that became final and conclusive as to the false transfer of advance payment claims, the following: (a) evidence of the details of financial transactions asserted by the Defendants; (b) the relationship between the Defendants and Defendant B; (c) the financial resources of the Defendants; (d) the circumstances after the transfer of claims; and (e) the place of use of the claim collection amounting to KRW 4.8 billion and the subject of ownership, etc., the transfer of the claim for advance payment return (hereinafter “the transfer of claims in this case”) by O (hereinafter “O”) against Defendant B is false.

B. Defendant A’s three companies’ question as to whether the actual manager, such as misunderstanding of the fact about the perjury, is not abstract or general, but is specific and direct, and thus, it is difficult to view that Defendant A responded to this question by misunderstanding the purport of this question.

2. Determination:

A. 1) As to whether the transfer of claims in this case is false or not, the burden of proof in a criminal trial of a criminal trial of the burden of proof ought to be based on evidence with probative value sufficient for a judge to have the conviction that the facts charged are true beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, in a case where the prosecutor’s proof does not sufficiently reach the extent that it would lead to such conviction, it should be determined in the interests of the defendant even if there is suspicion of guilt (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Do13416, Jul. 24, 2014). 2) Even if the facts acknowledged in the judgment of a civil case related to the probative value criminal trial of a relevant civil judgment are not bound by the confirmation of the civil judgment, but can be found to be different from the facts established in a civil judgment by evidence (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Do13416, Feb. 25, 2010).