Around January 7, 2012, the Defendant concluded a lease agreement with the victim E, who wishes to live in the second floor household of the instant housing unit at the D Licensed Real Estate Agent Office located in the same Dong, stating that “A lease agreement was made on the housing unit because it was impossible to return KRW 120 million to the second floor household of the instant housing unit. However, if the lease agreement was concluded and the lease deposit was cancelled, it would not interfere with the purchase of the deposit by immediately paying the deposit to the tenant and cancelling the lease deposit, and it would return the deposit without delay upon the termination of the contract.” The Defendant still received the remainder of the lease agreement with the victim who believed that the lease agreement was concluded with the victim for two years from February 17, 2012, and KRW 120 million (hereinafter “the lease agreement”) and received KRW 12 million from the victim’s place of such lease agreement, and it did not receive the remainder of the lease deposit from the victim on February 17, 2017.

However, the defendant operated a restaurant at the time, but the size of the restaurant was small, and the business was poor, and the defendant did not have any real estate or property in his name except for the housing in this case, and there is no cash or other available funds in water, and there is no way to raise funds smoothly. In addition, in the case of the housing in this case, the market price of the housing in this case was approximately KRW 40 million (398,60,000 when the actual compulsory sale was made on June 2012), but there was considerable amount of the defendant around that time due to the depression of real estate market.