2. The following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, namely, ① the Defendant has been in charge of the management and lease of the building on behalf of the owner A since the construction of the building in this case around the end of 2011. The instant lease agreement was concluded around April 23, 2015 on behalf of the owner of the building, on April 10, 201, when H voluntarily requested an auction of real estate at Liwon District Court Li for the said building on April 10, 2015 and the decision to commence the auction was issued on April 23, 2015 after the same day was issued, and ② H had the investigative agency contact with the Defendant.

“In doing so, the court below stated that “N should not communicate with the victim, thereby drawing up an auction.” At the time of filing a request for auction on April 2015, the court below stated that “Before the request for auction was made, the Defendant would not continue to pay the interest or principal, but would make an application for auction, and thereafter, the Defendant would have known that the request for auction was made first,” and ③ The prosecution also stated that “A would have known the fact that auction was commenced by communicating with the victim before entering into a contract with the victim, and, in full view of the fact that there was a statement that there was a voluntary auction procedure for the building of this case, the Defendant could sufficiently recognize the fact that the Defendant had concluded the lease contract of this case by deceiving the victim and acquired the deposit money.” Thus, the above argument by the Defendant is without merit.

3. Conclusion.