Defendant

All appeals filed by the Defendants A, B, and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court’s sentence against Defendant A, B, and B (one year of suspended sentence for each one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles (as to the acquittal portion of the judgment below)

A. The Defendants’ evasion of compulsory execution was against the risk of the progress of auction and set up a right to collateral security with the burden of false debt. At the time, other creditors of the Co., Ltd. E (hereinafter “Co., Ltd.”) filed a voluntary request for auction, provisional attachment and seizure against the officetels owned by the Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Co.”), and there is a concern for compulsory execution against the above officetels. Thus, the Defendants committed an act of causing damage to the creditors by bearing false debt under circumstances where compulsory execution is likely.

However, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles and finding the Defendants not guilty of this part of the facts charged.

B. The Defendants’ act of fraud on June 7, 2013 constituted a separate crime by distinguishing the motive, method of deception, and the economic benefits acquired by the lower court’s conviction from the previous crime of fraud of the construction cost (hereinafter “prior crime”) and the motive, method of deception, which the lower court found the Defendants guilty. However, the lower court did not constitute a separate crime from the prior crime.

The judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles.

2) The lower court’s sentence against Defendant A and B is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. Determination as to the prosecutor's assertion of mistake of facts

A. The summary of this part of the facts charged is as follows: Defendant B, and Defendant B, around February 2013, in the process of acquiring a company other than the public prosecution from Defendant C, at the request of the creditor K around March 9, 2012, voluntarily auctioned Dtel owned by the non-party company. On March 27, 2012, K seized provisionally seized one half of the above officetels.