Nevertheless, the court below acquitted the charged facts of this case. The court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case presented a complaint stating that the Defendant was in a past relationship with the victim C, and that the Daegu District Court located in the Daegu Suwon-dong, Daegu-gu, on June 13, 2011, in spite of the fact that the Defendant lent money to the Defendant, “The Plaintiff did not lend KRW 12,000,000,000 to the Defendant, but the Defendant did not comply with the demand of the Plaintiff for payment for the above loans more than once, with the extension of the payment due date, and the Defendant did not comply with the demand of the Plaintiff, without any justifiable reasons. As such, the Defendant submitted a complaint stating that “the Defendant would pay the Plaintiff 12,00,000 won and 20% interest per annum from the day following the date of delivery of a duplicate of the complaint to the date of completion,”

The Defendant, as such, attempted to acquire pecuniary benefits equivalent to the above money by deceiving the full bench in charge and ordering the full bench in charge to pay the victim 12,00,000 won to the full bench, but did not have attempted by the victim’s response.

B. As to the facts charged in this case, the lower court determined that there was no proof of crime for the following reasons and sentenced the Defendant not guilty pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

1 Litigation fraud is aimed at deceiving the court to take over the property of a third party, and it is not true that there is no right as alleged at the time of the lawsuit in order to recognize it as fraud.