사기
All appeals filed by the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.
1. The money deposited into the Switzerland bank account in the name of F in the summary of the grounds for appeal is owned by E. The claims and obligations between the Defendants are all false without objective supporting materials. The Defendants issued promissory notes by deceiving F and preparing authentic deeds by deceiving F and collecting them by receiving a collection order for the said account by deceiving the court as an executive title. Thus, it constitutes litigation fraud.
2. As to the prosecutor’s grounds of appeal, the lower court found the Defendants not guilty on the grounds that: (a) there are various circumstances to deem that Defendant B actually owned claims against the Defendant against the Defendant, regardless of who actually belonged to the money deposited in the account in the name of the instant F, a promissory note made up against the Defendants cannot be readily concluded as false promissory note; and (b) insofar as there is no evidence to acknowledge this, the collection of claims based on the promissory note against F, the joint issuer of the said promissory note, cannot be deemed unlawful.
The judgment below
Examining the reasoning in comparison with the record, even if the actual owner of the money deposited in the account in the name of this case is E, in order to establish the lawsuit fraud of this case, Defendant B’s claim against Defendant B is false, and it is recognized that the Defendants, by deceiving F, had F issue the Promissory Notes to Defendant B and prepare a notarial deed. The evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to acknowledge it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. If the F prepares the said Promissory Notes with his own will, unless the F did not attract the Defendants and the lawsuit fraud, the compulsory execution against the said Promissory Notes against the account in the name of F cannot be deemed unlawful, and the Defendants’ lawsuit fraud.