The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that the judgment below which found the Defendant guilty of fraud was erroneous in the misapprehension of the facts, although the Defendant donated the land South-gu I (hereinafter “the instant land”) to the victim at the time of port and obtained it by deception from the victim.

2. From October 2002, the summary of the facts charged, the Defendant borrowed KRW 35 million from the above victim from around May 2006 to the victim F, and around June 2, 2006, the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer under the name of the victim of the Nam-gu I land in the name of the victim at the port of port owned by the Defendant’s Dong H.

On November 30, 2009, the Defendant made a false statement to pay KRW 37 million, including registration expenses, after one year from the time of the transfer of the land at the time of port “a defect in the victim’s house located in Ulsan-gu J, Ulsan-gu that the victim would have to dispose of the above land”.

However, even if the defendant was transferred the ownership of the above land from the victim, he did not have the intention or ability to pay the victim KRW 37 million with the land price.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as above, transferred the ownership of the above land equivalent to KRW 35 million at the market price from the victim around December 2, 2009 under the name of the Defendant.

3. Determination

A. The judgment of the court below also asserted as the grounds for appeal in this case. The court below held that the defendant "(i) from around October 2002 to around May 2006, the defendant borrowed 35 million won from F to around the end of May 2, 2006, and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of F with respect to the land of this case, which is the defendant's Dong-H from around June 2, 2006, which was owned by H, but it appears to have been aimed at securing the defendant's obligation to the victim, as well as the purpose of avoiding compulsory execution from H's creditors, and ② according to the statement by the defendant and the victim's assent, the relationship between the defendant and the victim around 208.