A. The Defendant lent KRW 20 million to C in cash and had a claim for the borrowed money, thereby filing a civil lawsuit against the victim. Thus, the Defendant’s act cannot be deemed as a litigation fraud.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles that found guilty of the facts charged in this case.

B. The sentence of the lower court (a fine of three million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court duly admitted and investigated evidence to the effect that the Defendant lent KRW 20 million in cash to C prior to the preparation of the certificate of loan of KRW 50 million at an investigative agency. However, the lower court and the first instance court’s ruling that the Defendant borrowed KRW 20 million at the above 50 million and stated that the Defendant borrowed KRW 20 million at the time of the lending was inconsistent. ② On November 22, 2011, the Defendant newly drafted a certificate of loan of KRW 32 million between C and C. In this case, the Defendant: (a) deemed that the loan of KRW 27 million from the Defendant was merely KRW 27 million; (b) the Defendant loaned KRW 50 million to C and 50 million, based on the following facts: (c) the Defendant was able to ask questions to the police officer of the instant case on July 24, 2012; and (c) the Defendant was able to obtain KRW 50 million additional KRW 500,000,000 from C.