However, there was no intention or ability to operate a camera even if the person who suffered from the damage receives the deposit money.

As such, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, entered into an agreement (use of a store) from the damaged party on his/her job, and received five million won as a security deposit.

2. Since the Defendant received KRW 5 million from the injured party the money in the name of the deposit, the fact that the Defendant did not do so is also recognized by the Defendant, even though he/she did not allow the injured party to receive the entrance entrance and exit of the card terminal so that the injured party can operate the car page and changed the name of the card terminal in the name of the injured party.

However, the following circumstances revealed by the witness F’s statement and the record of the instant case, namely, the Defendant and G operate the instant carbook in the form of the same business, and the Defendant and G agreed that the car page would not be well registered in the name of G, and that G agreed to be more than a third party, and thereafter G was its employee.

The actual party to the instant arrangement is E as the victim of the F facts charged.

The fact that G proposed to be operated by taking over and operating a car page, that G consulted about the business conditions when F will take over the car page with F, that at the time, the defendant and G had a dispute over whether F would take over the security deposit to be paid from F. However, even if the defendant received the full amount of the security deposit from F, if he did not notify G separately even though he received the full amount of the deposit from F, it seems that G would have received the objection (record the record that the defendant received the security deposit from F.