On January 10, 2010, the Defendant entered into a lease agreement with the victim F on the real estate located in Daejeon Jung-gu, Daejeon, Daejeon, Daejeon, with the owner of C apartment 1303, and on January 10, 2010, the Defendant entered into a lease agreement with the victim F. on the following grounds: “A lease agreement with the victim shall be concluded: “A lease agreement with the victim shall be concluded by partially repaying the secured debt of the first priority mortgage (the highest bond amount of KRW 192,400,000) established on an apartment with a lease deposit, thereby changing the actual secured debt amount to KRW 80 million.”

However, even if the defendant received the lease deposit amount of KRW 90 million from the victim, he was thought to use it as personal business fund, and there was no intention to repay to the first priority mortgagee.

On January 10, 2010, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, received the total sum of KRW 90,000,000,000 from the victim for the purpose of lease deposit, and acquired it by remittance from the victim for the purpose of lease deposit. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 2200, Oct. 10, 2010; Presidential Decree No. 2000, Oct. 15, 2000,000>

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act provides that the pertinent provision of the police statement statement by the F and the choice of a sentence for the criminal facts subject to the law applicable to the statement statement by the police: (a) there is no special criminal conviction for the defendant for the reason of sentencing, other than one time before and after the sentence; (b) even though the amount of damage was not much much, there was no portion restored until three years have passed since the crime, and the victim