On February 11, 2012, the Defendant, at the D apartment sales office in Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Seoul, entered into a lease contract between the victim E with the “102 Dong 303, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, the deposit amount of KRW 70,00,00,00,” and said that the deposit can be returned when the lease period expires.

However, in fact, the Defendant purchased the above apartment house at KRW 189,00,000 from Samsung Fire and KRW 70,000,000 from the injured party, without any capital of the Defendant. At that time, the Defendant was obligated to pay interest of KRW 300,000 per month on the debt of KRW 44,00,000 for the above Samsung Fire, and there was a situation where additional payment of KRW 1,50,000 per month, which is the interest accrued from the above Samsung Fire, was in a situation where it was impossible for the Defendant to pay the living expenses and interest of KRW 1,50,000 per month, which is the Defendant’s income, and there was no guarantee that the above apartment was sold within a short period of time, and thus, it was anticipated that the auction of the apartment is expected within several months.

As such, the Defendant was granted KRW 70,00,000, in total, KRW 70,000,000 on February 11, 2012, and KRW 21,200 on February 21, 2012, and KRW 23,00,000 on April 6, 2012, by deceiving the victim and deceiving the victim as such, under the pretext of deposit money for lease from the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness E;

1. Statement made by the police for E;

1. E written complaint (including attached documents) (the defendant and defense counsel asserted that the defendant not only did not have the criminal intent to obtain fraud but also did not have a causal relationship between deception and the act of delivering the money for lease on a deposit basis of the victim.

The following circumstances acknowledged by each of the above evidence, i.e., ① the Defendant’s loan that received apartment as security and the deposit that received from the victim E, are not enough to have economic circumstances enough to purchase the apartment in the judgment, and ② the Defendant.