All appeals filed by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

Defendants C’s credit against Defendant A, i.e., KRW 80,000,00 on June 22, 2009, and KRW 182,017,315 on August 30, 2012, together with the amount of subrogated payment of KRW 182,017,315 on August 30, 2012.

Therefore, under the premise that Defendant C’s claim against Defendant C does not exist, the lower court convicted the Defendants of each of the charges of this case in error of mistake of facts.

Defendant

C An application for voluntary auction on the instant land was filed on March 14, 2013, and it cannot be deemed that the instant land belongs to the bankrupt estate at the time when the bankruptcy petition was not yet filed on November 4, 2013.

Therefore, the court below convicted him of violating the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act on the premise that the land of this case belongs to the bankrupt foundation.

There is no intention to evade compulsory execution, fraudulent lawsuit, violation of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, and there is no conspiracy between the Defendants.

The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendants (Defendant A, B: one and half years of imprisonment, three years of suspended execution, 160 hours of community service order, Defendant C: one year of suspended execution, two years of suspended execution, and 120 hours of community service order) are too unreasonable.

The above-mentioned sentence imposed by the court below on the Defendants is too uneasible and unfair.

The Defendants asserted that the mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles is identical in the original judgment, and the lower court convicted the Defendants of the determination on the Defendants’ assertion under the title “Judgment on the Defendant’s argument” in the judgment. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the original judgment and the lower court, the lower court recognized the facts and circumstances as stated in its holding. Therefore, the lower court is erroneous.