beta
Text
Defendant
All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant 1) As to the false accusation against E (Defendant 1)
1. A. (1) Since there is a fair deed of monetary consumption and loan agreement No. 1552 of the AA Law Firm 201, No. 2011, in which the defendant as the creditor and the debtor as E are the defendant, this part of the facts charged is not guilty on the premise that the defendant did not lend money to E.
B) As to the issue of false accusation against G [Judgment of the court below]
1. (a) (2) The above AA Law Firm No. 2011, No. 1552, No. 201, and the Defendant, are creditors, and the AA Law Firm No. 260, No. 201, a document of monetary consumption lending and lending contract No. 200, a document of which the Defendant is the debtor, exists, and the judgment became final and conclusive after winning the loan case No. 2014Na7180, which was filed by the Defendant against K, and the Defendant was a creditor against I, E, J, K, B, etc.
However, as the defendant demanded repayment after finding the above debtor, the above debtor "G has to pay money by threatening the above debtor."
High Court's ruling was made.
“.” The Defendant stated to the effect that it was, and only the Defendant stated it in the complaint.
Therefore, the defendant did not know G, but did not have any intention to commit a false accusation.
C) As to the fraud (the judgment of the court below)
1. B. B. The Defendant: (a) determined the due date on August 30, 201 as of December 30, 201 as of December 30, 201; (b) determined the due date on August 13, 201 as of September 15, 2012; and (c) actually lent KRW 2 million to K; and (d) determined the said judgment after winning the loan in the Changwon District Court Decision 2014Na7180 decided February 4, 2015, the Defendant was not guilty of this part of the facts charged premised on the premise that K borrowed the said money from K.
D) As to the exercise of a forged document (the judgment of the court below)
1.(c)
A) The grounds for appeal by the Defendant do not contain the fact that the Defendant committed an alteration of private documents.