The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles1) The Defendant had no perception that the instant collateral security claim was false claims. 2) The Defendant had been punished for attempted fraud on the ground that he had already received distributions based on a false collateral security claim. The transfer of the said claim to I is an act ex post facto act.

3) The Defendant could not have anticipated that I would file an application for voluntary auction. 4) Even if the Defendant’s false collateral security claims held by the Defendant were transferred to I, it is not worth punishing the Defendant since it did not affect the auction procedure.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (eight months of imprisonment and two years of suspended sentence) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The judgment of the court below on the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles also asserted the same purport, and the court below held that ① the defendant already punished was against the act of demanding a distribution with a false mortgage claim in the Cheongju District Court L case, and this case had the defendant transferred the above claim to I and let I apply for a voluntary auction again during the auction procedure based on the Cheongju District Court M and N case, which is different from the previous punishment, and the defendant is not deemed to be an act of a non-permanent ex post facto act. ② The defendant who transferred the right to collateral security to I who urged the defendant to pay his debt, was aware of the fact that he could apply for an auction at any time, and ③ the defendant was not punished because he transferred the false collateral security claim he had owned to I, but the defendant caused the risk of causing another creditor's damage in the new auction procedure as seen earlier.