The judgment below

The part of the defendants, except the rejection of the application for compensation order, shall be reversed.

Defendant

A.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A1) The amount of fraud part against the victim C by mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles is not “property benefits equivalent to the same amount (280 million won)”, such as the facts charged, but “amount of property gains”. 2) The lower court’s sentence of unfair sentencing (2) is too unreasonable and unfair.

B. Defendant B (compactingly unfair)’s imprisonment (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Defendant A’s assertion of misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of legal principles (ex officio determination as to Defendant B) and the provisional attachment of real estate is cancelled, the owner of the real estate would benefit from the possession of the real estate without any burden. Thus, the cancellation of provisional attachment also constitutes property disposal act in fraud, and even if it is found that there is no preserved claim against provisional attachment thereafter, there is no property benefit due to the cancellation of provisional attachment (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do5507, Sept. 20, 2007). In the event a crime of fraud has been established by cancelling provisional registration under the victim’s name, the amount of pecuniary benefit acquired by the Defendant is the value of the right to be compensated by the provisional registration (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do9417, Jan. 24, 2008). However, even if the amount of profit acquired by the criminal act is an aggregate of the value of the property or pecuniary benefit acquired through the criminal act, and it cannot be considered that there is no relationship between the value of the property interest calculated.

Even if there is no illegality, it cannot be said that there is no illegality.

Supreme Court Decision 199Na1788 delivered on July 1, 1997