The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The intention of misunderstanding the facts and misunderstanding the legal principles should be determined on the basis of the perception at the time of the act.

The Defendant believed that the instant collateral security (hereinafter “instant collateral security”) created with respect to the Defendant’s spouse K-owned real estate (hereinafter “instant real estate”) was null and void, and the registration of the instant collateral security (hereinafter “instant collateral security”) was lawfully cancelled.

Since I think, the defendant did not have the intention of fraud.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (two years and six months of imprisonment, four years of suspended execution, and community service order) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) The intent of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of a crime of fraud, is to 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 performing the transaction, unless the Defendant makes a confession. Since the crime of fraud is established by willful negligence. The subjective element of the constituent element of the crime refers to the case where the possibility of the occurrence of the crime is uncertain and it is acceptable in light of the subjective element of the constituent element of the crime, and the willful negligence was committed.

In order to determine the possibility of the occurrence of a crime, not only has the awareness of the possibility of the crime but also there is an internal intent to allow the risk of the crime. Whether the offender allowed the possibility of the crime, or not, should be determined based on the specific circumstances, such as the form of the act that was disclosed outside, and the situation of the act, etc., without depending on the statement of the offender, in consideration of how to evaluate the possibility of the crime in question if the general public is based on the general public, the psychological state should be ratified from the standpoint of the offender (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do1214, Feb. 26, 2009). 2) The defendant is also alleged in this part in the lower court.