A. In fact, the Defendant: (a) concluded a delegation or use contract with G on the F building located in the east-do New Stocks E (hereinafter “instant building”) of Japan’s east-do east-do east-do 103, 205, and 206; and (b) did not conclude any contract with the victim D; (c) there was no deception of the victim.

In Japan, there is a practice that the owner of the building impliedly accepts the sublease contract (not written consent), and since the actual owner of the building of this case permits the defendant to use the above contract ex post facto, there was a criminal intent to acquire by fraud.

It is also difficult to see it.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. In full view of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, the lower court’s judgment that convicted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case is justifiable, and the lower court did not err by misapprehending the facts alleged by the Defendant, as alleged by the Defendant.

A. On September 4, 2014, the victim consistently leased the instant building 103 from the Defendant to the investigation agency to the lower court’s court, and paid 5,350,000 UN totaling KRW 5,50,000, a half of the deposit amount of the said day to the Defendant, but did not actually use the said No. 103, and the said 5,350,000 UN was not returned.

In particular, from the background of the conclusion of the above contract in the court of original instance to the expiration of the civil litigation in Japan, the testimony on the overall circumstances, etc. in Japan cannot be found very specific and special contradictions, and the following G’s statement or September 4, 2014.