1. As to the ground of appeal on the attempted fraud

A. The legal interest protected by the law of fraud is a property right, so only a person who has a property right can not become a victim in fraud.

Therefore, in case where the court deceivings a third party to acquire the property from the defrauded, the court, which is the defrauded, cannot become the victim, and in case where the third party who acquired the property by fraud is the victim, so if the third party who is the victim and the person who committed the crime of fraud are in a relationship of lineal blood relative, the punishment should be exempted in accordance with Article 328 (1) of the Criminal Act which is applied mutatis mutandis

(See Supreme Court Decision 75Do781 delivered on April 13, 1976). B.

The judgment below

According to the reasoning and the record, C and the Defendant, the victim of the attempted fraud, are aware of the relationship between the mother and female, and the lower court should have exempted the punishment by applying the provisions of Articles 354 and 328(1) of the Criminal Act to the attempted fraud among the facts charged in the instant case.

Nevertheless, the lower court did not exempt the offender from punishment for attempted fraud, but convicted him/her of the substantive judgment, and determined the remaining punishment together with the remaining criminal facts.

The judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the scope of application of victim and relative precedent in the litigation fraud.

2. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the evidence admitted by the lower court as to the ground of appeal on the fabrication of private documents and the uttering of private documents, the lower court is justifiable to have determined that the lower court guilty of forging private documents and exercising private documents among the facts charged in the instant case on the grounds stated in its reasoning, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the legal doctrine

3. The judgment of the court below that attempted fraud is within the scope of reversal.