If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

On March 2, 2009, the Defendant entered into a lease contract with the victim D and the deposit for the lease on a deposit basis, and two years for the lease on a deposit basis, with respect to the housing located in Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.

At the time, the Defendant received a loan from the new bank, and paid the victim, and transferred part of the claim for the refund of the deposit for lease to the new bank.

After that, on September 6, 2010, the Defendant transferred the entire claim to the victim for the return of the deposit before lease to the lessee, and notified the transfer of the claim to the victim on the same day.

On March 25, 2011, the Defendant: (a) as a director upon the expiration of the lease term on a deposit basis, transferred a claim for the refund of the deposit to Daminc Co., Ltd.; and (b) did not have the right to receive it from the victim; and (c) when the victim is forgotten, the Defendant was granted KRW 35 million, calculated by deducting KRW 40 million from the amount of the deposit of the deposit of the new bank at KRW 75 million from the victim as he/she had the right to receive the refund of the deposit of the deposit of the former deposit, notwithstanding his/her duty of good faith to notify

The Defendant, by deceiving the victim as such, received KRW 35 million from the victim as the refund money for the lease deposit, and acquired it by fraud.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. A protocol concerning the police interrogation of the accused;

1. Statement of the police statement of E;

1. A real estate lease contract;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of the contract for transfer and takeover of bonds;

1. Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act and the choice of a fine concerning the crime;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The reason for sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act Article 334(1) of the order of provisional payment is low, and the victim's amount of damage is much smaller than that of the crime (based on the direct principal of damage).