The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The accused shall publicly announce the summary of the judgment of innocence.

1. Although the objective facts among the facts charged in the instant case against the Defendant in the summary of the grounds for appeal are fully acknowledged, it cannot be said that there was a criminal intent of fraud of lawsuit seeking pecuniary benefits by deceiving the Defendant to the court.

Nevertheless, the court below sentenced the defendant guilty on the facts charged of this case. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the establishment of litigation fraud or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. A. A litigation fraud is an offense involving deceiving a court and obtaining a favorable judgment for himself/herself to acquire the other party's property or pecuniary advantage. The punishment of such a crime is inevitable to inevitably lead to the chilling of the civil trial system that anyone may claim favorable arguments for himself/herself and receive remedy through a lawsuit. Thus, unless the defendant acknowledged the crime, unless there are cases where it is objectively apparent that the allegations in the lawsuit are different from the facts, or there is a trace that the defendant objectively knows that his/her arguments in the lawsuit are clearly false or that the defendant attempted to manipulate evidence, it shall not be easily found guilty (see Supreme Court Decision 96Do2422, Jul. 22, 1997). In addition, in order to establish the litigation fraud, there is insufficient claims as alleged at the time of the lawsuit, and it is sufficiently insufficient to establish the lawsuit fraud, and even if it is well known that there is no claims in the lawsuit, the court should be aware of deceiving by a false assertion and proof.

(See Supreme Court Decision 81Do2526 delivered on September 28, 1982, etc.). B.

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, after lending C a sum of 360 million won over several times from 2007 to 300 million won, the Defendant borrowed money from C: D, lessee: C, deposit deposit amount of KRW 00 million, and location of Seoul Metropolitan Government.