The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Changwon District Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The summary of the facts charged of this case is as follows: although the defendant did not have a claim of KRW 20,00,000 against the victim F, he/she falsely prepared a certificate of loan under the victim's name; he/she completed the registration of creation of the right to collateral security in the name of the defendant with respect to the lending of this case (hereinafter "the lending of this case") as stated in the judgment of the court below; and accordingly, he/she acquired dividends of KRW 10,880,885 by filing an application for a voluntary auction of the real estate lending of this case.

In regard to this, the lower court, as stated in the facts charged, found that the Defendant received dividends in the distribution procedure, following the voluntary auction procedure based on the registration of invalid collateral security.

Even if such auction procedure becomes null and void due to its cause, the victim does not lose the ownership of the loan of this case and the purchaser is not entitled to acquire the ownership, and the dividend paid by the defendant can be claimed by the purchaser who does not acquire the ownership to return unjust profits to the defendant. Thus, the court's voluntary auction procedure had the content and effect

The judgment of the court of first instance which acquitted the charged facts of this case cannot be seen, was maintained as it is.

In a case where it is proved that the identity of the facts charged and the victim stated in the indictment are different from those of the accused, the accused should be found guilty by pointing out the victim other actual victims as stated in the indictment ex officio without due process of modification of indictment, unless the identity of the facts charged is disturbed and substantial disadvantages are inflicted on the accused’s defense right (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 87Do2168, Dec. 22, 1987; 2001Do6876, Aug. 23, 2002). Therefore, insofar as it is recognized as identical to the facts charged in the instant case and it does not disadvantage the accused’s exercise of defense right, it is immediately said that the victim is not the F as stated in