When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

From January 201, the Defendant: (a) in the Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government apartment commercial building; (b) in fact, the Defendant was unable to withdraw from the Defendant unless the Defendant returned KRW 20 million to the person residing in the permanent rental apartment from the Defendant, Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, 403 Dong 1511, a lessee; and (c) there is no particular property to do so; (d) even if the Defendant received money from the victim D as the deposit for sub-lease of the above apartment, the Defendant could not allow the victim to reside in the above apartment; and (e) could not return the money received from the victim; (b) notwithstanding the fact that the Defendant, the Defendant concluded that the Defendant “(s).5 million won is presented to the former lessee who had been living in the former, and would be able to reside as the former lessee,” the Defendant received KRW 4 million from the victim on January 28, 201; and (c) obtained KRW 500,500,000 from the Defendant.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Witness D and E each testimony;

1. Partial statement of the witness F in the court;

1. Partial statement of each police interrogation protocol against the accused (including each part of statement D and E in the questioning protocol);

1. The deposit statement and the disbursement statement [First, according to the above evidence, the defendant has been liable for the repayment of approximately KRW 20 million to F (G) from old to the date and time before the date and time stated in the facts charged, and the defendant has a relation to the above debt and mother's relation, and each of the facts that he subleted the apartment to H (H) of F.

In addition, if the sub-lease of the apartment of this case was not conducted for the purpose of securing the above obligation, the above 3rd party defendant, F, and H are specifically legal relations or the defendant's "whether the above 3rd party defendant could have left without returning the 20 million won to the sub-lessee at the time."