Based on the above, the instant right to collateral security is valid for the following reasons. In other words, the Defendant’s loan claim 619 million won against B, which is the basis of the instant right to collateral security, actually existed, and C, which is a joint and several surety with respect to the above loan obligation. B created the instant right to collateral security agreement in the name of the Defendant following the Defendant’s sunset, but the Defendant ratified the act of unauthorized Representation as above. 2) Even if the instant right to collateral security is null and void, the Defendant did not know it.

In other words, the Defendant did not directly participate in the establishment of the instant right to collateral security and was not aware of the fact. However, the Defendant cannot accept the unilateral assertion of the victim N, etc. that the instant right to collateral security was null and void due to a false conspiracy with others.

In a situation where the defendant did not properly recognize the existence of a false conspiracy, he/she applied for a voluntary auction through the process of ratification of an act of unauthorized representation with a legal expert's advice. Thus, it is merely an exaggerated expression to justify the right to believe that there is existence, and the defendant does not intend to deceive the court as a false fact with a well-known knowledge of the absence of a right.

3. For the above reasons, although the defendant should be acquitted, the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case and erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to litigation fraud, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. We examine the judgment, based on the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below.