The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

A and B Imprisonment with prison labor for one year and six months, and Defendant C shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,00,000.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles regarding the fraud against Defendant A and B, the court below found the Defendants not guilty of this part of the facts charged, on or after October 2010 where the aforementioned Defendants had been supplied with the goods from the victim, even though it was sufficiently proven that the said Defendants did not have the intent or ability to pay the goods. However, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles and misapprehension of legal principles as to the facts charged.

With regard to Doshed, Defendant A and C’s fraudulent entry and exercise of the authentic copy of the authentic deed, the mortgage contract of this case concluded between the above Defendants is null and void as a false declaration of conspiracy, and thus making the aforementioned Defendants enter the establishment registration in the register of the establishment registration of the fundamental right to collateral security.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which acquitted this part of the facts charged is erroneous in misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles.

B. The lower court’s sentence (Defendant A: a fine of KRW 3 million, Defendant C: a fine of KRW 500,000) against the Defendants is too unjustifiable and unreasonable.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds of appeal by the prosecutor ex officio, the case is examined ex officio with respect to Defendant A and C, and the prosecutor against the above Defendants for the first time in the trial, the violation of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name among the facts charged in the instant case, and the false entry of the authentic copy of the authentic deed, and the fact of exercising the same and the following facts constituting the crime

The judgment of the court below against the above defendants was no longer maintained because the above defendants filed an application for amendment to Bill of Indictment added to the evasion of compulsory execution as stated in the Paragraph, and this court permitted it, and the judgment of the court below against the above defendants became different.

However, among the judgment of the court below, there is a ground for the above ex officio reversal of defendant A and C, but the prosecutor's above mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles.