The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles) argues to the effect that the Defendant: (a) registered the right to request the transfer of ownership on the instant real estate in the name of AF for sale and purchase reservation; and (b) immediately withdrawn KRW 300 million from his agricultural cooperative account; and (c) deposited the said money in the said agricultural cooperative account in the name of F, the prosecutor asserts to the effect that the Defendant led to the confession of the instant facts charged by the Defendant during the police investigation process through the written reasons for appeal, and thus, the Defendant

However, since it is clear that the content of each police suspect interrogation protocol against the defendant does not constitute a confession of the facts charged in this case, it is not an additional examination.

The defendant had made the same appearance as bearing false debts for the purpose of evading compulsory execution.

In light of the above legal principles, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby acquitted the Defendant on the charges of this case.

2. Even if the obligor has made a provisional registration for the purpose of preserving the right to claim the transfer of ownership on the real estate owned by him/her by a third party on the best part of the amount of obligation owed by the third party, such provisional registration is only effective for preserving the original order. Thus, the mere fact that a provisional registration has been made cannot be deemed as having harmed the obligee by bearing a false obligation for the purpose of evading compulsory execution (see Supreme Court Decision 87Do1260, Aug. 18, 1987). However, if the obligor bears a false obligation for the purpose of evading compulsory execution under the risk of being practically forced to enforce compulsory execution, there is a risk of undermining the obligee unless there are any special circumstances.

It should be viewed (see Supreme Court Decision 95Do2526 delivered on January 26, 1996), and there is also an act of filing for registration the right to request the transfer of ownership for the purpose of security.