All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. As to Defendant B

A. The summary of the grounds of appeal 1) Defendant B did not bear a false obligation because he actually lent money to Defendant A. As such, Defendant A did not bear a false obligation.

B) Although the instant real estate was auction proceedings conducted with the application for auction by the first-class mortgagee, Defendant B did not obtain any benefit from the auction of the instant real estate because it did not satisfy all the first-class mortgagee’s claims, and the victim D did not have suffered any loss due to the instant case.

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court to Defendant B (the penalty amounting to KRW 3 million) is too unreasonable.

B. 1) First of all, we examine the argument that Defendant B actually lent money to Defendant A.

Comprehensively taking account of the following facts and circumstances admitted by the court below according to the evidence duly admitted and investigated, the defendants conspired to commit a false debt relationship with the defendant A with the intent to escape from compulsory execution.

Therefore, Defendant B’s above assertion is without merit.

① On May 9, 2012, Defendant A completed the registration of creation of the right to collateral security (hereinafter “instant neighboring mortgage”) in the name of Defendant B with respect to the Seo-gu Incheon apartment (104, 804, Dong-gu, Daejeon apartment (hereinafter “instant apartment”) and filed a lawsuit claiming divorce and consolation money against D on May 14, 2012.

D On May 15, 2012, the right to claim the division of the above apartment as the right to the claim for the division of the property was decided to dispose of the disposal price, and the defendant A filed a counterclaim against the divorce, consolation money, and the claim for division of the property.

Daejeon Family Court, on April 9, 2014, accepted a claim for divorce by Defendant A under the heading 1859 (Mains) and 2012 Dhap 2340 (Counterclaim) and partially accepted a claim for consolation money, and partly accepted the claim against Defendant A, the amount of KRW 42 million in the division of property and its corresponding amount.