Defendant shall be punished by a fine of three million won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

A. In fact, the Defendant had already repaid the borrowed money to E, and there was no deception that “the deposit for lease is changed to B,” and there was no intention to commit the crime of defraudation.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the facts charged of this case.

B. The sentence of the lower court (one year of imprisonment with prison labor for four months and one year of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below claiming misunderstanding of the facts: ① The victim, when the defendant demanded the return of the deposit, shall be deemed to have received the notice of transfer of the claim to the defendant.

“Along with the fact that the Defendant did not know one time of business,” the Defendant provided that “A notice of credit transfer was given and received money while running a business, and that the Defendant paid money to the lending company even on the date when the director intends to do so.”

말했다” 고 진술하였는바, 피해자의 진술은 구체적이고 일관되어 신빙성이 있는 점, ② 피고인은 대출 받은 사실을 깜박 잊고 보증금 전액을 반환 받았다는 취지로 변소하나, 피고인이 2012. 11. 20. 경 대부업자 E로부터 700만 원을 차용하였는데, 그로부터 10여 일 후인 2012. 12. 초경 임대인인 피해자에게 ‘ 이사하겠으니 보증금을 반환하여 달라’ 고 요구하였고, 2012. 12. 22. 보증금 중 일부를 반환 받고 이사를 하였으므로 한 달 만에 차용사실을 잊었다는 주장은 선뜻 이해하기 어려운 점, ③ 피고인은 E가 피해자에 대하여 양수 금 청구의 소를 제기하기 전인 2015. 3. 경 E로부터 대출금 이자가 연체되었다는 연락을 받고도 곧바로 대출금 채무를 변제하지 않았던 점 등에 비추어 보면,...