The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The decision of the court below on the grounds of appeal is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and thus, the defendant shall be acquitted.

There is no intention of deception and illegal acquisition by the defendant, nor there is a conspiracy with the debtor.

The E of the debtor's side received delegation from the defendant for the collection of claims, and performed the duties, such as a collection order, and the defendant was not involved in the process.

B. Even if the Defendant applied for a seizure and collection order with the amount higher than the actual amount of the claim in the court, the court does not make a specific judgment on the scope of the claim subject to seizure at the time of issuing the seizure and collection order, but becomes subject to substantive judgment in subsequent litigation of demurrer against distribution, claim objection, etc., so there is no causation between deception and disposal.

C. Even if the creditor receives a seizure and collection order with the amount higher than the actual amount of the claim, the creditor B only has an indirect interest, and thus, it does not constitute a crime of fraud with the creditor B as the victim.

2. Determination

A. Based on the circumstances indicated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that: (a) the Defendant conspired with the debtor and attempted to deceive the court by applying for a seizure and collection order by excessively releasing his claim amount; and (b) the causal relationship between such deception and the court’s act of disposal is sufficiently recognized; and (c) the crime of fraud was committed against B, the payment of which was impossible due to such deception, as the victim.

B. The Defendant alleged that he had no intention to deception or to illegally obtain the judgment of the party, which was the first instance court, submitted an application for the seizure and collection order based on a notarial deed, stating that he would receive to the maximum amount of money from the certified judicial scrivener office, although he had received a partial repayment.