L, T, andO were not originally entitled to move into the leased apartment of this case, and the defendant was well aware of such circumstances and was not authorized to move into the leased apartment of this case separately.

Therefore, according to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, it is recognized that the Defendant, even though there was no reason to bring them to money as a security deposit, had the Defendant deceiving them to bring them to a security deposit.

Nevertheless, the lower court determined that it is difficult for the Defendant to recognize the intention of deception or deception, on the grounds that the Defendant could have received the rental apartment deposit in advance from L, T, andO, and that there was a need to keep the leased apartment deposit.

B. According to the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor, the lower court determined that the Defendant did not sufficiently prove that the Defendant received money from M in the name of the rental apartment deposit, despite the fact that the Defendant received money from M.

2. Determination

A. The lower court’s judgment 1) Each fraud against L, T, andO is difficult to view that according to the following facts recognized by the record, the Defendant had the intention to deceive L, T, andO or to defraud money from the Defendant. The evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize the fact that the Defendant had taken money by deceiving L, T, andO, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. (A) Although the Defendant was not qualified to take occupancy in a rental apartment, the Defendant is a rental apartment on the face of a rental house.