beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. In fact, the defendant did not have the intention to acquire the money equivalent to the amount stated in the above investigation document, but did not have the intention to actually acquire the money, by way of legal resolution for the defects in the delivery quantity, the contents of the Crerecing anticipated to be claimed from the Frecing will first be prepared, and applied for provisional attachment and the claim for damages. In fact, the defendant attempted to change the claim amount as stated in the accurate Crecing details in the subsequent litigation process, and in fact, intended to revise the purport of the claim in accordance with the actual Crecing in the litigation process, and thus, the defendant should be acquitted without the intention of fraud.
B. The first instance sentencing (one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, and one hundred and sixty hours of community service) on the accused of unfair sentencing is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. (1) As to the assertion of mistake of facts as to attempted fraud, (i) fraud is aimed at deceiving a court to defraud a third party’s property, and thus, in order to recognize it as a crime of fraud, there is no right as alleged in such assertion. However, even if it is well known of the absence of the right to claim, there is awareness that the court is deceiving the court by a false assertion even if it is well aware of the absence of the right to claim (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Do13453, Apr. 10, 2014). The manipulation of evidence in a lawsuit fraud refers to an act of manipulating objective and third party evidence by creating a disposal document, etc. or inducing a witness to testify, etc.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2003Do7700 delivered on March 25, 2004, etc.). In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the Defendant filed a claim provisional attachment application, real estate provisional attachment application, and claim for damages against the KAH and its representative director, with respect to the instant case, as evidence, and the Defendant is Japan Fast as stated in the first instance court.