However, with respect to Defendant B, it shall be for 2 years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

To the extent that there is no substantial disadvantage in exercising the defendant's right of defense, part of the facts charged was revised.

The Defendants are married couple.

On May 2, 2014, the Defendants concluded a lease agreement between the victim F, lessee B, lease deposit amount of KRW 200 million, and two years prior to the lease period of KRW 200 million (hereinafter “the lease agreement of this case”) with respect to the tenant F, lessee B, lease deposit amount of KRW 200 million, and the lease contract between the tenant and Pyeongtaek-si apartment G (hereinafter “instant apartment”).

On May 15, 2014, the Defendants received a loan of KRW 120 million from the H Bank (hereinafter “instant loan”). On the same day, Defendant B entered into an agreement with the Korea Housing Guarantee Corporation (hereinafter “Korea Housing and Urban Guarantee Corporation”) with the content that the amount of KRW 180 million out of the deposit of the deposit of the deposit of the lease of the lease of the lease of the lease of the lease of the lease of the lease of the lease of the lease of the lease of the lease of the lease of the lease of the lease of the lease of the lease of the lease of the lease of the lease of the lease of the lease of the lease of the lease of the lease of the lease of the lease of the lease of the lease of the lease of the lease of the lease of the lease of the leased lease of the lease of the lease of the lease of the lease of the lease of the lease of the lease of the lease of the lease of

As above, while the Defendants concluded the instant lease agreement and agreed to cancel the said lease agreement with the victim around March 2015, while residing in the instant apartment, the Defendants: (a) transferred the lease deposit to the Korea Housing Guarantee Fund; and (b) did not have the right to receive the lease deposit amount equivalent to the said amount, the Defendants, as if the Defendants were legitimate, demanded the return of the lease deposit to the victim as if they were the creditors.

On March 12, 2015, the Defendants deceiving the victim as above and received KRW 200 million from the victim via a licensed real estate agent I as the refund of the deposit for the lease on a deposit basis.

In this respect.