If a suit is filed with the misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal evaluation that there is a claim, the nature of the fraud in the suit.

In order to establish fraud in a lawsuit fraud, it is insufficient to say that there is no right such as the assertion at the time of the lawsuit does not exist, and it is required to recognize that the court is deceiving by a false assertion and proof even if it is well known that there is no right to claim, and the act of filing a lawsuit does not constitute fraud.

Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act

Supreme Court Decision 81Do2526 Delivered on September 28, 1982

Defendant

Prosecutor and Defendant

Seoul Criminal Court Decision 81No3873 delivered on February 17, 1983

All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the prosecutor's appeal

1. In so-called fraud in so-called fraud, it is insufficient to say that there is no right as alleged at the time of the filing of the lawsuit does not exist, and it requires the awareness that the defendant was aware of the absence of the right to assert it, and also requires the awareness of deceiving the court by false assertion and false proof. It does not constitute fraud (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 81Do2526, Sept. 28, 1982). (See Supreme Court Decision 81Do2526, Sept. 28, 1982) The original judgment of the court recognizes that the three warehouse units at issue in this case were built on the railroad site in which the defendant actually managed, and that the defendant was donated to the defendant at around 1966, and that the defendant was aware of the fact that the defendant was deprived of possession on the 000s warehouse, and that the defendant did not know that the above 3 warehouse was in violation of his/her own name and the record of his/her ownership preservation on the 1970s.

2. As seen above, the judgment of the court below, which held that there is no proof of a crime of deceiving the money by deceiving the money and deceiving the money, is just and it cannot be said that there was an error in the documentary evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit, because the above three warehouse units were believed to be one's own possession, and part of the warehouse 324 square meters from among them were leased to the non-indicted 324 square meters and received the deposit and the monthly rent, and therefore, it is not possible to commit a crime of deceiving the money by deceiving the money.

2. As to the Defendant’s appeal:

In light of the records, we affirm the facts constituting the crime of violence recognized by the judgment of the court below, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or incomplete deliberation.

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Jeon Soo-hee (Presiding Justice)