A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles, the Defendant solely owned D the instant lending.

There is no false or false representation in the registry on the loan.

② Although it is necessary to inspect the registry and confirm whether the ownership, provisional disposition, or provisional attachment registration has been made on the registry with respect to the loan of this case, D did not confirm the registry. Thus, the defendant did not deceive D.

③ Since the lease contract on the loan of this case imposes upon the Defendant a contractual obligation on the loan of this case by allowing D to use or benefit from the loan, regardless of whether or not the registration of ownership, provisional attachment, etc. was made on the register of the loan of this case, the loan of this case is not owned solely by the Defendant, or the registration of provisional attachment, etc. was completed on the loan of this case.

Even if D does not cause damage to D, fraud is not established.

④ If D paid KRW 80,00,000 to the Defendant as stipulated in the instant lease agreement, it could have repaid KRW 55,839,560, which was the aggregate of the secured claim amount of provisional seizure against the above loan, and cancelled the pertinent registration.

Therefore, even if the defendant receives a security deposit from D, he does not have any intention or ability to provide D with a defective house in the register.

B. The lower court’s sentencing (one month of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence, two years of social service, 80 hours of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (1) The Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles (1) was made a statement in each court of the lower court’s judgment that found the credibility of each of the above statements by witness D and E, and the lower court’s judgment that recognized the credibility of each of the above statements is significant.