사기미수
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of legal principles) is that a lawsuit fraud is acknowledged even if the court is not necessarily used false evidence if it is intentional to deception a court by filing a false lawsuit with a false content, and that the defendant is merely a formality of the franchise store agreement. As such, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts or misapprehending the legal principles, thereby finding the defendant not guilty of the facts charged in this case, even though filing a civil lawsuit against a victim based on the franchise store agreement constitutes an act of deceiving the court.
2. Determination on the grounds for appeal
A. The summary of the facts charged is the president of the headquarters B, and the complainant C is the person who operates the above 5 points.
The Defendant: (a) C/L was in a friendly relationship with D/L created by the complainants; (b) was English language students from the two points of the above private teaching institute to the two points of the above private teaching institute; and (c) entered into a franchise agreement on the five points of the above private teaching institute around January 2015; (d) the name of the franchise owner was entered into as the complainant due to the circumstances in the above D; and (e) the written agreement on the form of “three million won for monthly franchise and KRW 80 million for interior expenses,” but in consideration of the relationship of friendship, the effective terms of the oral agreement agreed between the two parties determined “one million won for monthly franchise, KRW 40 million for interior expenses” as “40 million for interior expenses.”
On the other hand, the Defendant borrowed 20 million won from the complainant on August 2015 in relation to the contract of another chain store, and as the Defendant failed to repay it, caused the complainant to pay it more severely, the Defendant terminated all 18 insurance contracts that the Defendant subscribed, and ordered the complainants to subscribe to a new insurance contract through the insurance solicitor (the insurance solicitor) (the complainants received KRW 18 million from the company).