The defendant is not guilty, and the summary of the judgment of innocence is publicly notified.

1. The Defendant was in de facto marital relationship with the victim D until March 22, 2010, and received a decision to recommend reconciliation from the government district court, which states that, around May 17, 201, the Defendant received 7,200,000 won from the victim as a lump sum payment, and that, around May 17, 201, the Defendant would receive 50,000 won from the victim as a support fee.

Since then, the Defendant filed an application for compulsory execution on the ground that the victim did not comply with the above decision of recommending reconciliation, and the victim filed a lawsuit of objection (201ddan8592), which was around June 10, 201, at the Jung-gu District Court: (a) notwithstanding the fact that there was no ex post ratification from the victim on the payment terms of support fees different from the written decision following the above decision of recommending reconciliation, the Defendant sent a written agreement stating the payment terms of support allowances to the victim, and tried to obtain pecuniary benefits from the victim by deceiving the court and obtaining a favorable judgment, but the Defendant was tried to obtain pecuniary benefits from the victim by deceiving the victim by submitting it to the full bench by asserting that the victim had ratified it after the decision of recommending reconciliation, but the decision became final and conclusive and became final and conclusive, and subsequently attempted to receive pecuniary benefits

2. The defendant and his defense counsel asserted that since the defendant sent the above agreement to D, D actually paid the corresponding amount, they did not intend to deceive the court.

3. Determination

A. According to the records of recognition, the following facts can be acknowledged.

On August 8, 2016, the record of the relevant claim objection suit refers to the records of trial (Evidence No. 1) submitted by the defense counsel.

(1) The Defendant A was in a de facto marital relationship between D and D until March 22, 2010, and he was his child E. However, a number of civil and criminal lawsuits are mutually available after the de facto marital relationship was terminated.