The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, and misunderstanding of sentencing) is understood that the Seoul Central District Court 2008 that the defendant filed a lawsuit against the victim living together with the defendant is the owner of interest on the trust in the name of the Seoul Gangnam-gu Seoul District Court site and its ground buildings (hereinafter “instant real estate”), and that the defendant can transfer his ownership registration name in accordance with the judgment below.

It was thought that there was no criminal intent to acquire money from the injured party because it was necessary to protect the victim from criminal charges or building rents.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which convicted the defendant of fraud and attempted fraud is erroneous in the misunderstanding of legal principles as to the recognition of the crime of mistake or fraud.

The sentence (10 months of imprisonment) imposed by the court below on the defendant is too unreasonable.

As to the assertion of mistake or misunderstanding of legal principles, the following facts are acknowledged according to the evidence of the court below.

The instant real estate was owned by the former owner L from the registration of real estate injury, and the building was owned by the former owner M from the former owner M on May 2, 1984, respectively, on May 2, 1984.

On December 22, 2008, the Defendant filed a lawsuit with the Seoul Central District Court No. 2008 (128773) against L and M on the ground that the Defendant purchased the instant real estate on January 10, 1984, to implement the registration of transfer of ownership in the Defendant’s future, and ② against D, the Defendant trusted the instant real estate in the name of D, and to seek performance of cancellation of the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of D on the ground that the title trust is null and void.

In the above lawsuit, the defendant was rendered a favorable judgment against L and M on May 12, 2009, and the judgment against D was rendered against D on the ground that the name trust is not recognized, and that the judgment was rendered on July 15, 2010.