The defendant is not the actual owner of the general housing in C at the time of the grace period, and there is no fact that he has been entrusted with the right to lease from the defendant who is the actual owner of the general housing in C, so the above house cannot be leased to the victim D, and even if he has received the deposit from the damaged person in the absence of special occupation and income at the time, there was no intention

Nevertheless, the Defendant, on June 2, 2010, concluded a lease agreement with the victim by deceiving the victim as if the victim was the owner of the said house, with respect to the first floor of the said house as of June 2, 2010, from June 2, 2010 to June 2, 2012, the Defendant acquired money from the victim by deceiving him/her as if he/she was the owner of the said house.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each police statement made to D or E;

1. Investigation report (Search of witnesses, such as F);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a certified copy of C real estate registry at the time of a grace, a copy of the judgment of security deposit for lease 7015, a copy of the contract for lease of real estate, and the details of inquiries about financial transactions;

1. Relevant Article 347 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense, Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of punishment, and reasons for sentencing of imprisonment;

1. One month to ten years from the date of imprisonment with prison labor for a prison labor in the range of applicable sentences; and

2. The scope of the recommended punishment according to the sentencing guidelines [the scope of the recommended punishment] general fraud (less than KRW 100 million). The basic area (from June to one year and six months) (no person who is subject to special sentencing).

3. Although a considerable period of time has elapsed since the Defendant had to return the leased deposit to the victim, the damage has not yet been recovered until now, and the judgment became final and conclusive by filing a lawsuit claiming the return of the leased deposit against the Defendant in 2011. Although the Defendant knew that the judgment became final and conclusive, this does not require the victim to return the leased deposit in the instant house.