The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the defendant notified the victim of the provisional attachment when transferring the restaurant of this case and transferred the above restaurant normally, and did not have acquired the premium by deceiving the victim, but the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case. The judgment of the court below is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment

2. The intent of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of the crime of fraud, shall be determined by taking into account the objective circumstances such as the defendant's financial history, environment, details of the crime, and the process of transaction before and after the crime unless the defendant is led to his confession. Since the crime of fraud is established by willful negligence, it refers to the subjective element of the constituent element of the crime, which is the case where the possibility of the occurrence of the crime of willful negligence is expressed to be uncertain, and there was an incomplete intention.

In order to determine the possibility of the occurrence of a crime, there is not only awareness of the possibility of the crime, but also there is an internal intent to accept the risk of the crime. It is not dependent on the statement of the offender whether the offender was aware of the possibility of the crime, but also on the basis of specific circumstances such as the form of the act that was externally revealed and the situation of the act, etc., it is necessary to confirm the possibility of the crime from the offender’s standpoint (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do1214, Feb. 26, 2009). The court below duly adopted and examined the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence, ① the restaurant of this case leased by the Defendant’s home plers at the time of transfer to the victim on February 9, 2015, the above restaurant was provisionally seized on January 7, 2015 by the Defendant’s home plers at the time of transfer to the victim, and ② the victim also acquired the contract of this case.