All of the appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor to the gist of the grounds for appeal, the Defendants are fully aware of the fact that the injured party, even if the injured party did not have the intent or ability to pay the unpaid amount of goods, by deceiving the injured party of the provisional attachment, thereby obtaining pecuniary benefits from the cancellation of the provisional attachment

However, the lower court found the Defendants not guilty on the grounds that the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

2. 1) The lower court found the Defendants not guilty on the following grounds: (a) it is insufficient to view that the victim’s removal of provisional seizure on the vehicles stated in the instant facts charged was due to the Defendants’ deception; and (b) the lower court acquitted the Defendants.

① The victim was well aware of the fact that there was almost little remaining value of the vehicle due to the attachment of the remaining installments and various fines for negligence on January 2012. Accordingly, even if Defendant B was awarded a favorable judgment in the civil lawsuit (No. 12077) against Defendant E, a representative director, Defendant B, around January 2012, the victim did not perform compulsory execution against the instant vehicle.

② Defendant B had already closed down his business around May 2012, and thus, there was no benefit from the cancellation of provisional seizure on the instant vehicles.

However, Defendant B would pay 480 million won to the victim in return for the rescission of the above provisional seizure.

The promise is contrary to common sense.

③ Defendant A promised to engage in the transaction of goods as a substitute for the instant vehicle E by requesting the rescission of provisional seizure against the instant vehicle. The actual transaction of goods between Defendant A and the victim was conducted in an amount equivalent to KRW 300 million.

2) The following circumstances are acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined in the lower court’s judgment. In other words, the victim trades with the victim after Defendant A at the lower court.