beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of the Prosecutor’s Grounds for Appeal: In light of the relationship between the Defendant and E, the court below’s determination that the cause of the appeal, or the cause of the “written application for modification of the purport and cause of the claim,” was determined according to E’s intention, and that the Defendant appears to have passively accepted it is nothing more than a trend without specific grounds.
In addition, the defendant voluntarily withdraws a lawsuit along with the application for change of the purport of the claim and the application for change of the cause of the claim on July 6, 2012 and did not have any cause of the claim. In light of this, the defendant should be deemed to have been aware that his cause of the claim was false at the time of the filing of the lawsuit, or at least dolus
(2) Regarding forgery, etc. of private documents: The defendant's preparing a letter of borrowing without reporting or obtaining prior consent to the victim C is beyond the scope of delegation and is therefore an abuse of power of delegation.
2. Determination on the grounds for appeal
A. (1) As to the attempted fraud, the facts charged regarding the victim’s specific attempted fraud are specified as “C” rather than D companies, on the premise that the Defendant filed a civil lawsuit against C individual, a representative director of D (hereinafter referred to as “D”) with the Defendant.
However, our civil law is strictly divided into individual and corporation's responsibilities, so even if the corporation loses in the civil lawsuit filed against the corporation, the representative is not subject to individual civil liability, and it cannot be executed as the object of individual property.
However, even according to the statement of the complaint itself submitted by E and the defendant, etc. to the court, the defendant of the civil lawsuit is not "C" but "D company" as it is clear (see, e.g., 158 pages, 166 pages, and 171 of investigation records). Thus, the victim of the litigation fraud in appearance is not a victim of C.