The sentence of punishment against the Defendants shall be suspended.

In light of the legislative intent of the Rental Housing Act, in the above case, the prohibition of sub-lease contract should be applied equally. Thus, Defendant A constitutes “a rent” under the Rental Housing Act.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendants on the ground that Defendant A lost the lessee's status is erroneous in the misapprehension of the facts and affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. Around October 9, 2015, Defendant A sublet the foregoing D 116-dong 1501 (hereinafter “the instant rental housing”) that is a rental house he/she rents to F at the real estate E office in the two weeks-si Do, Yangju-si. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 27799, Oct. 9, 2015>

Defendant

B, like Defendant A, leased the above D 103 1103 dong 1103, which is a rental house, and A introduced the sub-lease of the instant rental house as above and arranged the sub-lease.

B. The lower court rendered a judgment on May 26, 2008, that the Defendant A, the owner of the instant rental house, notified the Defendant A of the termination of the instant rental house on the ground of the delinquency in rent, and that the said rental contract was lawfully terminated around May 26, 2008, and around that time, Defendant A lost the lessee’s status of the instant rental house. On the date stated in the facts charged, even if the Defendant A, who is not the lessee, sub-leases the instant rental house to F, it cannot be punished pursuant to the provisions of the Act, and the Defendant B cannot be punished pursuant to the said provision, which arranged the sub-lease by the Defendant B, who is not the lessee, cannot be punished.

(c)

1) The relevant legal principles are, in principle, unspecified.