Accordingly, the defendant did not appeal against the judgment of the court below, and the prosecutor appealed from the judgment of the court below on the ground of misconception of facts only about attempted fraud which is the part of innocence

Therefore, since the violation of the Road Traffic Act (unlicensed Driving) which is the guilty portion of the judgment of the court below is separated from the failure of both the defendant and the prosecutor to appeal, the scope of the judgment of this court is limited to the attempted fraud of which the judgment

2. According to the evidence related to the summary of the grounds for appeal, the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts about the above fact and thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, although it can be acknowledged that the defendant had by deceiving the court that attempted to acquire service costs of 48,930,000 won from the damaged company.

3. Determination

A. The lower court acquitted the Defendant on the following grounds.

1) In order to establish a lawsuit fraud, it is insufficient to say that there is no claim as alleged at the time of filing the lawsuit does not exist, and it is necessary to recognize the court as deceiving the court by making a false assertion and proof even if it is well known that there is no claim in the claim, and the act of filing a lawsuit is not a crime of fraud against the Defendant’s act of falsely recognizing the facts or impairing the legal assessment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Do373, May 16, 2003).