In a case where a third party received a document of lawsuit as if the defendant received it, and the plaintiff received a judgment by his/her constructive confession, the part of the document fraud

If Byung, after selling the real estate owned by Eul to Eul, filed a lawsuit claiming ownership transfer registration with Eul, and served the documents of the lawsuit, Eul pretended as Eul, or Byung received the said documents as Eul's representative and received the above documents and decided Byung won the judgment in favor of the constructive confession, Eul's lawsuit is a deception against the court.

Article 347 of the Criminal Act

Supreme Court Decision 67Do512 Decided May 30, 1967 (Article 228 (16) of the Criminal Act)

Defendant 1 and one other

Defendant 1 shall be punished by a fine of 200,000 won.

When Defendant 1 does not pay the above fine, the above Defendant shall be confined in a workhouse for the period calculated by converting the amount of KRW 5,000 into one day.

In regard to Defendant 1, 15 days of detention prior to the rendering of a judgment shall be included in the period of detention in the workhouse.

The Defendants are not guilty on each of the following facts: the description of the original copy of each process evidence, and on each of the above events.

Defendant 1: (a) On May 24, 1983, at the same time, at the house of the above defendant 1, 1983, he had the above defendant 2 enter the address of the above defendant 1, and then, (b) at the same time as the above defendant 2 had the above defendant 1 attend the above 526-1, 29,00 won, but he could not execute it because he did not obtain a certificate of the victim’s name necessary for the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer; (c) he filed a lawsuit claiming the registration of ownership transfer of the above land against the victim at the Jeonju District Court on August 18, 1983 (the above court case No. 83 456) by means of a false entry of the defendant 1’s address, and the above lawsuit documents were delivered to the defendant by mail, and the defendant suffers from mental illness after being delivered the above lawsuit documents to the victim or other family members living together with the defendant 1, who had been summoned by the above defendant 2, by means of summons or his proxy.

The above findings of the judgment

1. Each statement that conforms to the facts set forth in the judgment of Nonindicted 2, 3, 4, and 5 in the court

1. In the first and second protocol of trial, each statement that conforms to part of the facts in the judgment of Defendant 1;

1. Each statement that partially conforms to the facts indicated in the judgment among the suspect interrogation records against the Defendants in the examination by a public prosecutor and the preparation of a judicial police assistant;

1. Statement of Nonindicted 4’s written statement prepared by the prosecutor that corresponds to the facts indicated in the judgment

1. Each statement made by Nonindicted 2 and 6 in preparation of a judicial police assistant, which conforms to the facts indicated in the judgment;

1. The facts of the judgment can be recognized in full view of each mail delivery report copy (Articles 23, 24, 28, and 32), each copy of the pleading protocol (Chapter 26), and each copy of the judgment (Chapter 30) bound in investigation records, etc.

1. Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act (Selection of Fine);

2. Article 4 (1) of the Act on Temporary Measures such as Fines.

3. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act;

4. Article 57 of the Criminal Act;

1. Of the facts charged in this case, the judgment in favor of the plaintiff between the defendant 1 and the defendant 2 in favor of the plaintiff 83Da4566 of the above court located in the Jeonju District Court on November 3, 1983 for the purpose of uttering in collusion with the defendant 1 and the defendant 2 is known to be erroneous by the defendant 1, although the judgment in favor of the plaintiff 1 in favor of the plaintiff in respect of the above land between the defendant 2 and the defendant 1 was known to be erroneous by the defendant 1, the defendant 1 in the above court registration division without delay had the defendant 2 file an application for the partition registration of the right to claim the transfer registration of land according to the above judgment, and the defendant 2 shall be deemed to have a public official who does not know the above court registration and the name of the defendant 2 used the right to claim the transfer registration of land pursuant to the above judgment

2. First, Defendant 2 made a statement to the effect that Defendant 2 made a confession at the court of the first trial on the facts charged, but denied the crime at the court of the second trial, and he purchased the land of this case from Defendant 1 as the head of the association of the (title omitted) housing association, in which he purchased the land of this case under the name of the victim who is living together with Defendant 1, because Defendant 1 did not know the necessary documents prior to the registration, and obtained a favorable judgment against the victim and completed the registration procedure accordingly. As acknowledged earlier, Defendant 2’s favorable judgment on the above facts was made by Defendant 1 by falsely delivering the litigation document as if Defendant 1 pretended the victim or was a person living together with the victim, and the contents of the judgment are different from the facts as seen earlier, Defendant 2’s statement in the first trial record, the entry of the prosecutor’s protocol on the suspect interrogation of the defendant 2, the preparation of the protocol by the judicial police protocol on the non-indicted 2 and the statement by the witness at the court of first instance.

A. While the first written statement of Nonindicted 2, in the preparation of the judicial police assistant, there is a statement to the effect that Defendant 2 knew of the fact that the above judgment was different from the fact by taking part in the above fraud crime committed by Defendant 1 (in the case of Chapter 41, Chapter 42, the investigation record) but there is a statement to the effect that Defendant 2 was aware of the fact that the above judgment was different from the fact (in the case of Chapter 41, Chapter 42, the investigation record) but there is a statement only on the part of Nonindicted 2’s prosecution without any ground as to the fact that Defendant 2 participated in the

B. Non-indicted 3 stated in the court that the above employee of the housing association whose head is Defendant 2 had been Defendant 2 to purchase the pertinent land, but he refused to offer such proposal and returned it to the victim's responsibilities to compensate for the property suffering from mental illness. However, since the crime of this case was committed in collusion with Defendant 1, Defendant 2 also knew that the above judgment was different from the above fact. However, the fact that Non-indicted 3 had been rejected to purchase the association's purchase system before the sales contract of this case cannot be readily concluded that Defendant 2 conspired with Defendant 1 and committed the above fraud. Thus, the statement in the court of non-indicted 3 cannot be seen as having been merely a vague trend to the effect that Defendant 2 was different from the fact.

C. Of the interrogation protocol of Defendant 2 prepared by the public prosecutor, “The above real estate owner was the victim, but he was the victim, and the mail was delivered to the court, and if he did not attend the trial date, he automatically passed the registration of ownership transfer.” In addition, according to the Defendants’ statement in the first trial record, it is deemed that the Defendants conspired to answer to the main examination of the public prosecutor, and all of the facts were led to the Defendant’s testimony at the public prosecutor’s office, but the public prosecutor’s office did not obtain the certificate of personal seal impression from the above public prosecutor’s office and stated that the Defendants did not appear to have obtained the certificate of personal seal impression from the above public prosecutor’s first trial date. However, according to the Defendant’s statement in the first trial record, the above public prosecutor’s statement and the public prosecutor’s statement that the above Defendants did not appear to have obtained the certificate of personal seal impression from the public prosecutor’s first trial date and the public prosecutor’s statement that they did not appear to have been prepared and stated by the public prosecutor’s signature at the first trial date.

D. Therefore, all of the evidence mentioned above cannot be evidence to acknowledge that Defendant 2 knew that the above judgment was different from the fact at the time of applying for registration of this case in accordance with the judgment of this case, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, there is no evidence to acknowledge the criminal intent of Defendant 2 as to Defendant 2 as to the fraudulent entry of the original copy of the Notarial Deed and the fact that the same was exercised, and therefore, the above facts charged against Defendant 2 constitutes a case where

3. Next, according to Defendant 1’s statement in the first trial record as to the crime of this case’s health stand, the above entry of the authentic deed in the evidence and its exercise of the same, Defendant 1 did not have any such evidence as stated in the first trial record, and Defendant 2 did not have any such evidence as stated in the court’s first trial record, and it cannot be deemed that Defendant 2 had any such evidence as stated in the first trial record despite the fact that the judgment was pronounced in favor of the Plaintiff (Defendant 2) was different from the fact that it was made by his deception, the court’s registration and the above judgment led Defendant 2 to enter the above facts in the real estate registration application book by allowing him to file the registration of this case’s original copy. However, even though the second trial record did not deny the above crime, Defendant 1 stated that there was no evidence as stated in the first trial record as evidence by the public prosecutor or as stated in the second trial record that it was inconsistent with Defendant 2’s statement that it was consistent with the above evidence.

4. If so, since the defendants' false entry in the authentic copy of the authentic deed and the exercise of it against the defendants are all without proof of crime, it constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime, the judgment of innocence shall be rendered as to the defendants' non-entry in the authentic copy of the authentic deed among the facts charged in this case, and

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

Judges Kang Yong-sung