The nature of the crime of fraud in a lawsuit where a lawsuit has been brought with the belief that there has been a claim due to a mistake of facts or a mistake in legal evaluation;

In the so-called fraud of a lawsuit, in order to gain economic benefits by deceiving the court and obtaining a favorable judgment in the absence of a claim claim, it is insufficient to establish fraud, at the time of filing a lawsuit, that there is no claim as alleged in such claim, in order to establish fraud. Also, even if it is well known that there is no claim in such claim, the court should be aware of deceiving the court by making a false assertion and proof even though it is well known that there is no claim in such claim, and the act of filing a lawsuit is not a fraud.

Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act

Defendant

Prosecutor

Attorney Song-hoon

Seoul Criminal Court Decision 81No9 delivered on July 8, 1981

The appeal is dismissed.

The prosecutor's grounds of appeal are examined.

In order to establish fraud in the so-called fraud by deceiving the court and obtaining a favorable judgment even though there is no claim claim, it is insufficient to say that there is no claim as alleged at the time of the lawsuit in order to establish fraud. Also, even if it is well known that there is no claim in the claim, there is a false assertion and proof that there is no claim in the claim, thereby deceiving the court, and the act of filing a lawsuit is not a fraud.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that the defendant's 110,00 shares among the securities deposited in Samsung Co., Ltd. (the next Kim Jong-do reduced 3's right) was not a security against the defendant's claim for the settlement of accounts (the existence and amount of dispute between the parties concerned) with the above 110,00 shares in the above 4-person agreement at the time of original adjudication based on the evidence, and that the defendant did not have an obligation to return the above 110,00 shares to the above 110,00 shares from the above Kim Jong-do and actively cooperate with the above 110,000 shares, and that the above 110,000 shares were not the defendant's right to claim the return of the above shares to the above 1-year defendant's right to claim the return of the above shares, and that the defendant did not have an obligation to request the return of the above shares from the above 1-year Kim Jong-do's right to claim the return of the above shares.

All arguments are groundless.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Kim Jung-soo (Presiding Justice) and Lee Jong-young's Lee Jong-young