Whether the defendant can be the subject of the crime of fraud in civil procedure

Even if the defendant is not the plaintiff who is the active litigant but in the defensive location, the defendant is not the plaintiff, but the active litigant, but has the court taken the place by deceiving him by means of active methods, such as preparing a false document, submitting it as evidence, or giving a perjury, and if the performance of his/her property becomes exempted by being judged in favor of the court, fraud is

Article 347 of the Criminal Act

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Kim Chang-sik

Gwangju District Court Decision 87No76 delivered on April 30, 1987

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

As a result, if a defendant who is not the plaintiff who is the active litigant but in a defensive position, had the court take the place by deceiving the court by means of active methods, such as preparing a false document, submitting it as evidence, or giving a perjury, and if he/she is exempted from the performance of his/her own property by obtaining a final judgment in favor of the court, fraud is established as to the equivalent

As duly determined by the adopted evidence by the court below, in collusion with the non-indicted 1, the co-defendant 1, and 2 of the court below to lose the victim's name as the plaintiff in the civil litigation case of the judgment, and to win the defendant non-indicted 1 and the non-indicted 2 of the judgment, the cancellation and receipt of the contents as stated in the judgment of the court below shall be prepared as evidence for the civil litigation case of the judgment, and submitted as evidence for the non-indicted 1 and the non-indicted 2 of the judgment below, etc. as evidence of the judgment, and if the non-indicted 1 and the co-defendant 2 of the court of the court below believe that they were true and correct as a witness, they acquired the profits of the above real estate in light of the above legal principles, and it is clear that the defendant satisfies the elements of the crime of fraud in light of the above legal principles, and the defendant also cannot be exempted from the criminal liability as a co-principal for the crime of this case, and there is no error in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence or the legal principles of fraud.

Therefore, the defendant's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Lee Jin-Post (Presiding Justice)