The judgment below

The part against the Defendants is reversed.

Defendant

A Imprisonment with prison labor of one year and six months, and Defendant C shall be punished by a fine of 1.

1. Progress of judgment and scope of judgment of this court;

A. 1) The lower court rendered a judgment on the Defendants’ fraud among the facts charged against the Defendants, and acquitted each of the Defendants as to the entries and events of the original deed of fairness with respect to the Defendants, and found Defendant A guilty of the Defendants’ violation of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name, and ordered Defendant A to impose a fine of KRW 300,000 and a fine of KRW 50,000 to Defendant C, respectively.

2) The prosecutor appealed on the grounds of mistake and misapprehension of legal principles as to the fraud against Defendant A in the judgment of the court below, the false entry of the original copy of the process deed against the Defendants, and the exercise of the same, and the prosecutor filed an application for changes in the indictment to add the Defendants to the charges of the exercise of the process deed, the false entry of the original copy of the process deed against the Defendants, and the evasion of compulsory execution against the Defendants, and the trial prior to the transfer of the certificate was permitted.

3) The appellate court prior to remand accepted the prosecutor’s appeal partially and reversed the judgment of the court below, and judged the Defendants not guilty of entering false information in the original copy of the process deed against the Defendants and exercising the same, among the facts charged against the Defendants. However, the court found the Defendants guilty of the crime of escaping from compulsory execution against the Defendants in the commercial concurrent relation, and did not separately render a verdict of innocence, and instead ordered the Defendant A to impose a fine of one year and six months, and a fine of one million won on the Defendant C.

4) As to this, the prosecutor, on the ground that there was a misunderstanding of the legal principles as to the meaning of false entry in and accompanying accompanying to the original copy of a process deed, Defendant A filed each appeal on the grounds of misunderstanding of the legal principles as to fraud.

The Supreme Court rejected Defendant A’s assertion of misunderstanding of the above legal principles, and the Prosecutor’s assertion of misunderstanding of the above legal principles did not have any obligation relationship among the Defendants, and the case was established with respect to an officetel owned by Defendant A in the future.