1. Defendant A

(a) A person who is punished by imprisonment for ten months;

(b) subject to the execution of the above sentence for a period of two years from the date this ruling became final and conclusive;

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

A is a person who has been engaged in the affairs such as receipt of an application for registration of real estate while serving as a certified judicial scrivener office in Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government from February 2010.

Defendant

B, around July 13, 2012, borrowed KRW 60 million from the victim E at the above certified judicial scrivener office, and, along with the existing debt of KRW 200,000,000, Defendant A received the application for registration of the establishment of the right to collateral security on the land located in Yangcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government and the land located in the G and H (hereinafter referred to as “each of the above real estate”) with the maximum amount of 338,00,000 won for claims against the land located in the land located in Yangcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government and the building located in G and F (hereinafter referred to as “each of the above real estate”). Accordingly, Defendant A received the application for registration of the establishment of the right to collateral security from the certified judicial scrivener on July 18, 2012.

Therefore, pursuant to the above agreement, Defendant B’s duty to perform the registration procedure for creation of a collateral security on each of the above real estate has occurred. Defendant A, as an assistant to the performance of a certified judicial scrivener, must process the registration application with the care of a good manager according to the intent of delegation by the victim. In particular, since the priority number of a collateral security has a significant impact on the party’s rights, the duty to maintain the order of receipt of the application for registration was created by prompt revision when the order of correction

Nevertheless, on July 18, 2012, Defendant B, upon receiving a loan of KRW 450 million from J as the principal debtor, was willing to file an application for registration of establishment and priority of “J nearby mortgage” rather than “victim’s neighboring mortgage” in order to set up and set up a mortgage of KRW 585 million with respect to each of the above real estate (hereinafter “J nearby mortgage”). The Defendants, as seen above, voluntarily withdrawn the application for registration of “victim nearby mortgage” received on July 18, 2012.