The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles) has no liability to the victim for the dissolution of the insurance business team, and the defendant cannot seek the return of the scarpt from the victim.

Even if the payment of the Scar fee constitutes conditional donation, it is different from the composition of the legal doctrine from the loan, so insofar as the defendant claims it as the loan, it should be viewed as a deception against the court.

Nevertheless, the court below found the Defendant not guilty of the facts charged of this case. The court below erred by misunderstanding the facts or misunderstanding the legal principles.

2. In full view of the facts and circumstances as indicated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that the Defendant was not guilty of the facts charged in the instant case, stating that the Defendant’s payment was not a loan to the victim, and that the possibility of conditional lending or conditional donation was reasonable.

The fraud of a lawsuit is a crime that obtains the other party's property or property benefits by deceiving the court and obtaining a judgment favorable to himself/herself. If a defendant is found guilty, any one would have to assert favorable claims against himself/herself and cause the chilling of the civil trial system that can receive remedy through the lawsuit. Thus, unless it is evident that the defendant's assertion in the lawsuit is objectively obvious and that he/she clearly knows that his/her assertion is false or that he/she intends to manipulate evidence, he/she shall not be found guilty unless it is found that the crime is established, and simply the act of asserting that he/she has a right that is not found due to a mistake of facts or a mistake of legal assessment does not constitute a crime of fraud, and even if his/her assertion in the lawsuit is somewhat different, the right to believe that there exists a right is reasonable