사기미수
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
The Defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment of innocence of this case is publicly notified.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of legal principles) even though the crime of fraud in the first instance court due to the final judgment of winning the lawsuit caused by a false cause of appeal was committed, the defendant's act of taking part in the crime of deceiving the court of the second instance with the knowledge that the lawsuit fraud was committed in the appellate court that was followed by the subsequent appeal, can acquire "new property profits that may not be returned the already acquired forest and fields," separate from the forest and fields acquired through the fraud in the first instance court in the event the appeal is dismissed. Thus, the defendant's act of taking part in the appellate court with the knowledge that the lawsuit fraud was committed by the second instance court was committed by the second instance court, is not a subsequent act to punish the crime of fraud in the first instance court, but is not a subsequent act to commit the crime of fraud in the first instance court, and even if the execution of the appellate court with the knowledge that the lawsuit fraud was committed after the second instance court's final judgment,
Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on ex post facto action, which found the Defendant not guilty of the facts charged in this case on the ground that the Defendant’s act was merely an act of an ex post facto action and cannot be considered as an attempted crime of a lawsuit.
2. Determination
A. On July 6, 2010, the summary of the facts charged in this case filed a lawsuit claiming ownership transfer registration with respect to C, D, and E (hereinafter “C, etc.”) with the Seoul Central District Court on the Gyeonggi-si Kimpo-si G 26,038 square meters (hereinafter “the instant forest”) owned by the victim F, and filed a lawsuit claiming ownership transfer registration with respect to the Plaintiff He purchased the said forest. Accordingly, on September 29, 2010, the said lawsuit was represented as a lawyer by the said court in favor of the Plaintiff. However, the said lawsuit was filed by the damaged Party C, etc. without any specific management of the said forest, and the registration of ownership transfer of the said forest was completed before his domicile was corrected, and the domicile at the domicile registered with the injured was registered as the relation that was not corrected.