beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the gist of the grounds for appeal (the fact-finding) can sufficiently recognize the fact that the defendant raised F in mind.
2. Summary of the facts charged and the judgment of the court below
A. On March 7, 2013, the Defendant: (a) had the said attorney-at-law prepare a false statement of complaint against F at an attorney-at-law E office located in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Office of Law, 504; and (b) submitted a false statement of complaint to the public official in charge of the receipt of complaint, whose name cannot be known at the Sungnam-si public service center of the Suwon District Public Prosecutor’s Sungnam-si Office, which is located in the Sungnam-si Office of Law Office of Law, around March 7,
The accusation statement states, “F, the defendant, lent KRW 250 million to G and H, and acquired land and buildings in the name of the complainant under the name of the complainants, and the complainants acquired them by public sale in the name of both cities of both cities of Gyeonggi-do. As such, while the complainants issued and kept a promissory note at a face value of KRW 500 million from the complainants in order to prevent them from arbitrarily exercising their respective rights, the complainants did not exercise their rights to the above G, etc., and even if the defendant's suit completed the registration of transfer of ownership with the form of sale and purchase of the above real estate on September 14, 2009, even if there was no obligation to pay the said promissorysory note, even if there was no obligation to pay the above promissorysory note, it would be punishable because the defendant applied for a payment order to pay the amount equivalent to the above promissory note to Sung-nam branch of Suwon District Court around July 29, 201 and the above promissory note would not be recovered from the defendant's debt to F.”
As a result, the defendant was arrested by F with the aim of having F punished criminal punishment.
B. The lower court determined that, as F was unable to recover L’s claim, the Defendant’s promissory note to guarantee the recovery of the damage.