The judgment below

Among them, the parts of each of them shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal;

A. At the time of receipt of the amount stated in paragraph (1) of the facts charged (referring to the sequence stated in the facts charged in the judgment of the lower court; hereinafter the same shall apply), each Defendant was highly likely to file a complaint with I due to embezzlement of funds of C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “C”), and there was sufficient incentive to borrow money from victims (E and D) in order to secure the cost of attorney appointment, operating funds, and personal living expenses, since most of the property owned by Defendant and Defendant Company B (hereinafter “B”) was written in the name of the repayment of embezzlement damage.

The Defendant, around the above time, was liable for a maximum amount of rental deposit with respect to the real estate owned by the Defendant and B, and was delinquent in paying a large amount of national taxes, etc.

As such, the court below rejected the evidence, which corresponds to this part of the facts charged, without reasonable grounds, although the court below did not impeachment the evidence that corresponds to this part of the facts charged, such as the statement of the victims and the difficult economic situation between the defendant and the defendant, on the sole basis of the judgment of the court below.

B. The Defendant attempted to commit fraud was confirmed to have lost all of the civil proceedings against E and D between 2010 and 2012. Moreover, even in a lawsuit for a loan claim as stated in paragraph (2) of the facts charged against the victim (E), determination was made in accordance with the allegations of E as to the primary claim (a loan claim) and the conjunctive claim (a return of unjust enrichment).

In the above loan claim case, the defendant was aware of the existence of the loan claim, but he was aware of the existence of the loan claim, and was aware of the deception of the court by false assertion and proof. The defendant's assertion was sufficient to deceive the court.

The defendant has the intention to commit the litigation fraud.