logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 2021.01.07 2020노1230
사기미수등
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows: (a) the Defendant: (b) entered into a mortgage agreement with D on the land of the land of the land of the land of the land of the land of the land of the land of the land of the Changwon-si, Changwon-si; (c) the maximum claim amount of KRW 2.7 billion; and (d) the maximum claim amount of KRW 2 billion with respect to F hotels; and (c) completed the registration of establishment of a lower right (hereinafter “registration of creation of the instant right”); and (d) according to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the Defendant clearly perceived that the registration of establishment of the instant right was not null and void as a registration that guarantees the Defendant’s penalty claim and non-payment of the service claim against D.

Nevertheless, since the court below rendered a not guilty verdict of the facts charged in this case, it erred by misunderstanding the facts charged in this case and thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The relevant legal doctrine fraud is an offense involving acquiring the other party’s property or pecuniary advantage by deceiving the court and obtaining a favorable judgment for himself/herself. The punishment of it is inevitable to inevitably bring about the chilling of the civil trial system that any person may enjoy relief from his/her right through a lawsuit. Therefore, except in cases where the defendant acknowledged a crime, unless it is objectively apparent that the allegation in the lawsuit is different from the facts, or there is a trace of clearly knowing that the defendant either knew that his/her assertion in the lawsuit is clearly false or attempted to manipulate the evidence (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Do2422, Jul. 22, 1997). The specific judgment of the court below is based on the evidence submitted by the prosecutor as stated in its reasoning, which is objectively different from the facts of the defendant’s assertion in the lawsuit.

arrow