The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. (i) misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal principles, D consented to A’s provisional attachment of the instant real estate with the intent to guarantee Defendant’s obligation to A, and thus, A’s payment order received against D is not a false payment order.

B. After the decision on sale, the Defendant applied for the issuance of dividend after receiving the instant payment order, and thus, did not harm the fair sale price or free competition.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged is as follows: (a) the Defendant used the account under the name of father D in the process of borrowing a total of KRW 50 million from around October 2012 to March 2013; (b) delivered a certificate of loan voluntarily prepared in the name of father D to Defendant A; and (c) around June 29, 2014, A provisionally attached the Seongbuk-gu Seoul E Real Estate owned by D (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

Since then, around August 11, 2014, A filed a lawsuit against D with the Seoul Northern District Court against D, but the appeal was dismissed on November 6, 2015, even though D was ruled against the debtor on the ground that D was not the debtor, and the auction procedure for the instant real estate was conducted on early November 6, 2016, A filed an application for the issuance of dividends as a provisional seizure right, but it was impossible to receive dividends as above in the lawsuit on the merits of the claim, which is the basis of provisional seizure.

To enable A to receive dividends on the basis of payment order, the Defendant and A and D applied for a false payment order against D, and D received a payment order from the court in a manner that they did not raise any objection to D, and offered A to receive dividends by submitting the payment order for the auction procedure, which is most likely to be a creditor of D and submission of the payment order in the auction procedure.

Accordingly, A is in the city around March 31, 2016, despite there is no loan claim to be paid by D.