A. Whether a mistake of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles is established shall be determined on the basis of the time of the act. The Defendant did not recognize that his assertion is obviously false at the time of filing a lawsuit to raise an objection.

The defendant was unable to memory the victim that he prepared a contract for a loan for consumption and a certificate of money borrowed.

The Defendant had an objection to the amount of loan for consumption on the Notarial Deed of Promissory Notes, and there was an doubt as to whether there was an interest agreement, and filed an objection to the claim, considering that considerable amount has been repaid.

Therefore, the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case even though the defendant did not have the intention of deception, and the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and misunderstanding the legal principles which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (six months of imprisonment and one year of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of the legal principles relating to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts. 1) The relevant legal principles aim at deceiving a court to defraud a third party’s property by deceiving the court, and thus, in order to recognize it as a fraud, there is no right as alleged at the time of filing a lawsuit alone. It is insufficient to say that there is no right as alleged in such assertion in order to recognize it as a crime of fraud. Moreover, even if it is well known that there is no right to claim, it is well known that there is no right to claim, and the court is deceiving the court by false assertion and proof (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Do373, May 16, 2003). However, in a case where there is an intention of deceiving the court by filing a false lawsuit, even if the party’s assertion is not necessarily used with false evidence, it is a means of deception if it is sufficient to deceive the court (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2002Do4151, Jun. 24, 2011).