On April 9, 2012, when the Defendant entered into a lease agreement with the victim on an apartment owned by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant apartment”) (hereinafter “instant contract”), the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the Defendant’s acquisition of a deposit of KRW 120 million (hereinafter “the instant deposit”) with the victim on April 8, 2009, the maximum debt amount of KRW 12 million (hereinafter “the first mortgage”) established on the said apartment, and the right to collateral security (hereinafter “the second mortgage”) with the maximum debt amount of KRW 18 million (hereinafter “the second mortgage”) with the victim on June 25, 2009, and 30 million (hereinafter “the maximum debt amount of KRW 30 million”) with the maximum debt amount of KRW 10 million with the victim on August 21, 2009, and acquired the victim’s intent to acquire and terminate the said deposit with the victim on April 12, 2012 (hereinafter “the instant right to collateral security”). However, the Defendant was guilty of the Defendant’s total debt amount of KRW 1000 million (hereinafter “the instant”).

However, at the time of entering into the instant contract, the Defendant merely promised to terminate only the right to collateral security amounting to KRW 100-20 million out of the maximum debt amount among the right to collateral security established on the instant apartment, and did not agree to terminate all of the instant right to collateral security.

After the payment of intermediate payment and the victim's request, the defendant promised to terminate the right to collateral security on June 19, 2012, and expressed the summary of the major registered matters attached to the back of the contract of this case.

Therefore, the promise to specify the right to collateral security and terminate it is a circumstance after the conclusion of the instant contract. Therefore, fraud cannot be established. The Defendant is the victim.