The judgment below

The guilty portion shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

provided that this judgment has become final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the Defendant’s attempted fraud on February 25, 2010 among the facts charged in the instant case, the Defendant could not know at all the circumstances acknowledged in the relevant civil litigation, etc. at the time of the application for the instant payment order, there was no evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant acquired the Defendant’s money or C contributed in excess of his/her share of inheritance; ② As to the attempted fraud on March 8, 2010, whether C borrowed money from the Defendant or paid KRW 40 million for the proceeds of joint property lease received from the Defendant, either the Defendant, C, F, and E’s inheritance tax, respectively, and there was a sudden conflict between the Defendant and C’s assertion and there was evidence to support the Defendant’s assertion on the leased facts, the lower court found the Defendant guilty on this part by accepting only C’s assertion.

In addition, the judgment of the court below was made on the basis of the civil judgment against the defendant after about two years after the prosecution of this case was completed. The defendant, although he did not have the portion of inheritance tax burden at the time of this case, he was jointly paid inheritance tax with loans of approximately KRW 3.5 billion in his personal name, he did not have the intention to obtain a return of money, and there was no intention to obtain a return of money, and the rental income was used as part of inherited property management.

Nevertheless, the court below found all of the charges guilty, and the court below erred by misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles that affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. As to the attempted fraud on March 15, 2010 among the facts charged by the prosecutor 1, 201 and the facts charged in the instant case, the Defendant spent the litigation expenses with the proceeds from the lease of the inherited property, not proprietary property, and the proceeds from the lease of the inherited property retroactively from the time of commencement of the inheritance according to the inheritance division trial of this case, since all the proceeds from the lease of the inherited property was the E, E