beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant prepared a notarial deed as indicated in the facts charged (hereinafter “instant notarial deed”) in order to secure only the Defendant’s debt for the No. D’s 15-day deposit amount, and thereafter, D’s payment of the above 15-day deposit amount to the Defendant, even though D paid all the above 15-day deposit amount to the Defendant, the said notarial deed is seized as the title of execution, and the corporeal movables in the main place operated by the victim with the title of execution, obtained a claim seizure and collection order against the credit card payment claim, and urged the victim to pay his debt as
The injured party is the defendant's deception and thus the defendant's debt D is discharged, so there is an error of mistake of facts or of misunderstanding of legal principles in the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant even though the facts charged are fully convicted.
2. Determination
A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is that the Defendant is the 15-day serial line consisting of 26 members of the Gyeyang and 10 million won in fake 26 members of the Gyeyang.
On June 24, 2014, the Defendant: (a) around Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu; (b) around 24, 2014, in order to prepare for the Defendant’s failure to pay the said D’s deposit, the Defendant had the victim E, a cause of the said 15-day credit guarantee the said D’s deposit amount; and (c) drafted a notarial deed of KRW 19,320,000 on the 15-day deposit amount to the victim; (d) around that time, the joint guarantor received the deposit amount of KRW 15-day deposit amount from D and could not demand the victim to pay the D’s deposit amount.
Nevertheless, around July 2017, the Defendant made a false statement to the Ulsan District Court to the effect that “D did not fully repay the deposit amount, which is the joint and several surety,” such as seizure and collection order of the claim against the victim and seizure of the movable property.”
The Defendant above.