“...”

However, in fact, the defendant did not have been delegated the right to lease from E, the owner of the above land.

The Defendant received five million won from the injured party around that time.

2. Determination:

A. The summary of the instant case asserts as follows.

In other words, on November 10, 201, C believed the Defendant’s false words that he was delegated with the right to lease from E, and determined and leased the instant land as five years of lease and five million won of rent ( =1 million won/year x five years).

C around that time, the Defendant paid KRW 5 million to the Defendant, and used and made profits from the instant land upon delivery, and it became impossible to use and make profits from the E-ro 2015.

In this regard, the Defendant delegated the right to lease from E and leased the instant land to C by determining the lease of KRW 3 years and KRW 5 million for the leased period of the instant land, and so, the Defendant asserts that there was no fact of deceiving C and deceiving the rent amount.

B. As to whether the defendant has no authority to lease from E, there is a statement of C in this law and investigative agency and a statement of C preparation that corresponds to this part of the facts charged.

C Each statement and accusation is a professional statement or a document stating it to the effect that C transferred to the effect that it does not have any right to lease the land of this case to the Defendant from E.

E is in a state of impossibility to make a statement under section 316(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Since there is a lack of evidence to determine the person, the corresponding part of C's statements and written complaint cannot be used as evidence.

The evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is sufficient for the defendant.