The provisional seizure is merely a method of preserving compulsory execution, and cannot be deemed to have actually expressed the intent of the claim based on false claims that are the basis thereof, so the request for provisional seizure without filing a lawsuit cannot be deemed to have commenced the crime of fraud. In the same purport, we cannot accept the argument that the judgment of the Defendants is just and that the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the timing of the commencement of the commission of the litigation fraud from another opinion.

2. We examine the Defendants’ grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below and the judgment of the court of first instance as cited by the court below, the facts constituting the crime against the defendants can be sufficiently recognized, and it cannot be said that there was any error of misconception of facts in violation of the rules of evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit. The arguments are not acceptable as they criticize the judgment of the court below on the preparation of evidence and the

3. Therefore, all of the defendants' appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices O Sung-sung(Presiding Justice)