The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Since the Defendant agreed to receive KRW 399,881,854 of the instant dividend from the victim B, the Defendant filed an application for the instant payment order, and did not assert false facts in the process. At the time, the victim left Canada, the original domicile, and thus, was likely to conceal and consume the instant dividend, and thus, was subject to a prompt judgment in order to prevent this from being prevented, and thus, only the Defendant applied for the delivery of the instant dividend to a false address.

Therefore, the defendant applied for delivery as a false address.

Even if this does not constitute litigation fraud, it does not constitute fraud.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous and adversely affected by the conclusion of the judgment.

B. In light of the various sentencing conditions in the instant case of unfair sentencing, the lower court’s sentence against the Defendant (a fine of four million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. We examined the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts. Even if the Defendant agreed with the victim as such, the Defendant applied for the instant payment order as part of the exercise of rights following the agreement.

Even if the exercise of rights by means of deception is to the extent that the act belonging to the exercise of rights and the deception belonging to the means of deception can not be acceptable as a means of exercise by social norms, the exercise of rights constitutes a crime of fraud (Supreme Court Decision 2003Do4914 Decided December 26, 2003). According to the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, according to the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the defendant revised the place where the victim was served to "in the third floor J of Seongdong-gu I building in Seoul," even though he knows that there is no relation with the victim as stated in the facts constituting the crime in the judgment below, and accordingly, the above J's employee served the original copy of the payment order in this case.