The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the relevant evidence of the grounds for appeal (the factual error), it is sufficiently recognized that the Defendant intended to acquire dividends by submitting to the court the actual details of debt obligations with respect to B as stated in the facts charged, and other false confirmations of debt.

2. The judgment below also asserted the same purport as the reasons for appeal in this part. As to this, the court below held that: (a) there is room to view that in the relevant civil procedure, the mortgage contract between the defendant and B was submitted in order to reflect the victim’s assertion that the mortgage contract between the defendant and B is null and void by means of a false agreement; (b) for a long period of time between the defendant and B, most of the cash borrowed from B, etc. were used by the defendant’s husband L; and (c) it was difficult for the defendant to confirm the detailed contents of the claim and obligation; (c) in light of the fact that the debt certificate of this case was prepared upon request of the defendant, etc. at the request of the defendant, etc. and did not manipulate the objective evidence in the course of preparation; and (d) there was no reasonable doubt that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone proves that there was deception or fraud by means of false assertion and proof.

In addition to the records of this case and the above circumstances cited by the court below, the judgment of the court below that the defendant did not prove the intention of deception and fraud in the litigation fraud, in addition to the final and conclusive judgment of the purport that some of the defendant's obligations against B exist in the related civil litigation case (Seoul Eastern District Court 2015Gahap108190).