A. misunderstanding of facts [2013rd 4471] The court below found that the defendant had occupied K as security around April 30, 2002, which had been occupied by L, the above 301th 301, 201, 301, and 401 located in Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government for sale to the victim H, and that the above 101 was delivered to I as the object of the exchange contract between the defendant and I on October 22, 2008, while the exchange contract was terminated after delivery to I, the above 201th 201 was still occupied by I at the time of the above sales contract, and that the above 301th 200 won had been occupied by L, and that the above 401th 300 won had not been occupied by the tenant and the above 10th 300 won had not been occupied by the tenant, and that the tenant had not been occupied by 3000 won and the above 10th 2010th H.

However, when concluding a sales contract with the above victim as to "D", the defendant notified the victim of the conclusion and cancellation of an exchange contract with I as to the above 101, and the fact that he filed an extradition lawsuit against I as security against the above 201, and notified him of the fact that he occupied by the J by providing the above 201 to J as security. Although L is residing in the above 301, it is reasonable to say that the defendant is residing in the above 301, but L could leave L at any time at any time and deliver the above 301 to the victim. The above 401 is also the lessee.