On July 30, 2014, the Defendant filed a lawsuit claiming the return of a loan amounting to KRW 390 million with the Defendant on the ground of a promissory note issued in the name of the Defendant C’s wife D.

(Seoul Central District Court 2014Gahap39362). However, in fact, the Defendant did not lend 390 million won to the victim, and the said promissory note was only issued in collusion with the Defendant in the past.

Nevertheless, even though the Defendant attempted to acquire the above money from the victim by deceiving the court and obtaining a favorable judgment as above, the Defendant did not bring about such intent with the wind of rendering a judgment against the Plaintiff in the court, but failed to do so.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. C’s legal statement;

1. Each written judgment and written complaint (In full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the Promissory Notes and the Notarial Deed in this case were prepared and delivered for convenience in order to facilitate the preservative measures, etc. on the F’s assets when transferring the victim’s credit to E in lieu of paying the victim’s debt to the Defendant-friendly E, and the Defendant did not actually lend the victim the amount equivalent to KRW 390 million at its face value to the victim. Although the Defendant was well aware of such circumstances, it is sufficiently recognized that the Defendant had been in custody of the said Promissory Notes separately from the Defendant’s claim against the victim in this case and the Defendant had actually lent the said Promissory Notes to the victim in cash (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Do7262, Sept. 8, 2011).

1. Article 347 of the Criminal Act applicable to the crime and Article 347 of the choice of punishment.