The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (based on factual errors and misapprehension of legal principles) The lower court did not sufficiently examine the progress, etc. of auction cases related to the instant house and warehouse building, and D, the complainant, did not have ownership in the instant warehouse building.

In addition, even if the complainant D had ownership, it is difficult to recognize the criminal intent to complete a false registration, thereby not guilty of the facts charged in this case. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. The lower court determined that: (a) if the warehouse building of this case is an accessory or accessory to the housing of this case, even if the warehouse building of this case was not assessed as the object of auction in the real estate auction procedure for the real estate auction procedure for the housing of this case F, etc. in the Jeju District Court, even if the warehouse building of this case was not assessed as the object of auction, Defendant A, the buyer of this case, acquired ownership; and (b) if the warehouse building of this case is viewed as a building that can be a separate object of ownership in transaction with economic utility with the housing of this case and independent use; (c) even though the Jeju District Court confirmed the decision to grant the successful bid in the auction procedure for the housing of this case, the warehouse building of this case was not presented in the list of real estate to be the object of the decision to grant the successful bid, and there was no request for auction by the G association, the applicant for the auction against the housing of this case, and therefore, the decision to grant the successful bid for the warehouse of this case is null and void; and (d) since it did not acquire the ownership of this case at its own expense.