The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

Provided, That the above punishment shall be imposed for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

1. Summary of the prosecutor's grounds for appeal;

A. The defendant applied for a payment order with the certificate of loan written by coercion C as evidence. This is obvious that the cause of the claim differs from the lawsuit claiming the return of unjust enrichment due to the loan claim, and thus it constitutes the commencement of the commission of litigation fraud. However, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant about the attempted fraud on a different premise is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The appellate brief of the public prosecutor’s grounds of appeal on unreasonable sentencing states only a mistake of facts as to mainly attempted fraud, but the appellate brief submitted by the public prosecutor states that the scope of appeal is “total,” and the appellate brief also states that “the public prosecutor is sentenced to a severe punishment before the original court and requested the principal office.” In light of the foregoing, it is reasonable to deem that the overall appellate brief includes the assertion on unreasonable sentencing as well as the overall appellate brief.”

The sentence of the court below against the defendant (two months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution) is too unfluent and unfair.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. On September 6, 2011, the Defendant submitted a loan certificate prepared by C upon filing an application for a payment order for KRW 40 million with the Busan District Court’s civil petition office located in the Busan Dong-dong, Busan.

However, in fact, although C did not borrow 350 million won from the Defendant, it was written by assault as provided in the preceding paragraph.

On September 8, 2011, the Defendant attempted to defraud 40 million won by deceiving the court in favor of him/her, but C filed an objection on September 29, 201, and did not bring the matter to a criminal attempt while the lawsuit is pending.

B. The lower court’s judgment did not have the claim at the time of filing the lawsuit in order to establish the lawsuit fraud.