A. As to the primary facts charged, the Defendant released money from the account of the Victim Ctel self-government council (hereinafter “self-government council”) by deceiving the court with false promissory notes notarial deeds and a loan certificate, and by receiving an assignment order or payment order, and the minutes, audit report, etc. to the effect that there was a legitimate resolution of the operating committee or approval of the general meeting at the time, and the audit report, etc. are doubtful, and thus, the lower court acquitted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged on the ground that the resolution of the operating committee

B. Even if the Defendant did not commit fraud against the Defendant in regard to the ancillary facts, the Defendant was issued an assignment order and payment order against the Victim Self-Governing Council based on the false promissory note or loan certificate under the name of H and J, which led the Victim Self-Governing Council to obtain profits by having the Victim Self-Governing Council bear false obligations, and the victim Self-Governing Council resulted in the risk of actual damage to property equivalent thereto, and thus, the judgment of the court below acquitted the Defendant.

2. Determination

A. The judgment of the court, which is the defrauded, should be effective as a substitute for the victim’s dispositive act. As such, in a case where the Defendants conspired with others to file a lawsuit against the dispositive act of the victim, or where the contents of the judgment that the Defendants attempted to mislead the court, are consistent with the intent of the other party to the lawsuit, it cannot be said that there was an act of delivering property by mistake, and thus, the crime of

(See Supreme Court Decision 96Do1265 delivered on August 23, 1996, etc.). According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the audit is conducted.