The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds of appeal is as follows: (a) as the judgment of the court below, the Defendants’ agreement with the lessee and the victims on behalf of the lessee and prepared a letter of refusal of the claim; and (b) thereby causing a mistake that the claims against the victims have not been extinguished after consultation with the attorney, and thus, (c) the Defendants cannot be exempted from liability; and (d) the Defendants clearly concealed the fact that they received reimbursement of KRW 87 million at the time of filing an application for compulsory execution; (b) Defendant B made a false statement with intent; and (c) Defendant B signed a letter of refusal of the claim and applied for compulsory execution under the name of the principal together with Defendant A; and (d) the Defendants and the victims filed an application for compulsory execution under the name of the principal, taking into account the following factors, it can be deemed that the Defendants

Nevertheless, the lower court rendered a not-guilty verdict on all the facts charged of this case. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is the representative director of C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”), and Defendant B is the spouse of Defendant A.

C Around January 14, 2015, the Seoul High Court (2013Na75948) rendered a judgment that “The victims jointly and severally pay C 120 million won and interest for delay” (hereinafter “the judgment of this case,” and the claim against C’s victims recognized in the above judgment was finalized at that time, and Defendant B acquired the claim for the instant judgment from C on January 20, 2015, and on January 30, 2015, Defendant B acquired the inheritance execution clause against the instant judgment and enforced enforcement against the real estate owned by the victims.