A. At the time of the conclusion of the instant lease agreement, the Defendant, upon the change of the trustee, had the intent and ability to issue a certificate of trust interest to the victim, and even if not, the issue of the certificate of trust interest is not an important element in the conclusion of the above lease agreement. Therefore, the victim entered into a lease agreement even if the certificate of trust interest was not issued. Therefore, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in the instant case, even though there was no relation between the Defendant’s deception and the disposal act. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (one year of a four-month suspended sentence) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The court below rejected the above assertion by the defendant's assertion as to the assertion of mistake as to the facts in the judgment of the court below on the same argument as the grounds for appeal in this case. The court below, after comparing the above judgment of the court below with the records and examination of the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below and the court below, it is important that the lessee should recover the lease deposit at the time of termination of the lease contract. The real estate in this case is entrusted with trust, and the victim could have secured the recovery of the lease deposit to be issued with the certificate of trust right to the above real estate. ② The victim operated the parking lot as L,O, and the same business, but most of the 200 million won of the lease deposit was invested by the damaged party, and the victim is more than other partners.