사기미수등
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The Defendant alleged that he borrowed KRW 90,00,000 to the victim on November 17, 2010. However, considering all the circumstances shown in the records and arguments, the Defendant’s above assertion is obviously false.
Therefore, since the defendant's deceptions the court in the same way as the facts charged in this part of the facts charged and attempts to take over the victim's property or attempted to take over the victim's property, the judgment of the court below that acquitted the defendant of this part
B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (ten months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, and one hundred and sixty hours of community service) is too uneased and unreasonable.
2. Judgment on the prosecutor's assertion of mistake of facts
A. The relevant legal doctrine’s fraud is aimed at deceiving the court and deceiving a third party’s property. In order to recognize it as a fraud, it is insufficient to say that there is no right as alleged at the time of filing a lawsuit, which is not sufficient to say that there is no right to claim. The perception of deceiving the court by means of false assertion and proof even if it is well known that there is no right to claim.
However, in the event that there is an intentional intent to deceiving a court by filing a false lawsuit with a false content, deceiving the court is a means of deception if the allegations by the parties are sufficient to deceive the court even if the false evidence is not always used (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do7262, Sept. 8, 2011).
Whether or not the defendant has filed a false lawsuit (whether or not the defendant's assertion was true on the grounds of remittance of KRW 90,000,000), the lower court's judgment cannot be concluded to have instituted a false lawsuit on the ground that it cannot be concluded that the defendant has instituted a false lawsuit on the grounds of "the above grounds of remittance of KRW 90,000,000 against the defendant and the victim's argument are in conflict."