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

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In the case of double selling of real estate, the seller’s act of disposing of the real estate to a third party after the receipt of an intermediate payment constitutes a crime of breach of trust as it violates the duty of registration cooperation for the buyer, and it is possible for the buyer to complete registration of transfer of ownership solely

Even if there is no obligation of seller to cooperate in the registration itself, it is not the absence of seller's duty to cooperate.

B. K Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “K”) and victim L Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “victim”) entered into a sales contract of KRW 3 billion (hereinafter “the instant sales contract”) with respect to the building “J building” (hereinafter “the instant building”) which was in the process of constructing a new building of KRW 481.4m2m2 in Sinpo-si, Sinpo-si, Sinpo-si, for KRW 481m2, and KRW 3 billion (hereinafter “the instant building”). The sales contract was divided into KRW 300 million, intermediate payments, KRW 1.8 billion, and KRW 900,000,000,000 for the intermediate payments, and the victim’s payment of the intermediate payments is substituted by succeeding to the obligation of the construction cost of K, and the remainder payment was subsequently agreed to be paid from the sales price after acquiring the construction later.

(c)

According to the AG’s legal statement, confirmation letter, receipt, and the judgment of related case, etc., which are the representative director of the victim, the victim paid in cash and substitute money for the obligation of the construction cost that he/she decided to accept in lieu of the payment of intermediate payment, and the payment of residual money has been fulfilled. As such, Defendant A and the representative director of K, who is the actual operator of K, shall cooperate with the victim in the registration of transfer of ownership of the building in question.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted Defendant A and B on the ground that Defendant A and B did not constitute a person who administers another’s business, and accordingly, Defendant C, a director of a joint criminal corporation V (hereinafter “V”) of some facts charged, was not proven as a crime, is erroneous and erroneous.