However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

The defendant is the owner of the building B at racing-si, and the victim C (V, 21 years old) is the student who concluded a lease contract for the building B around the school in order to enter the school at racing-si D.

On December 22, 2016, the Defendant, at the first floor office of the building B above, did not notify the victim C of a decision to commence an auction of the said building, and concluded a lease agreement with the victim and the victim for the term of the contract for the family room E of the said building from February 20, 2017 to February 9, 2018, the deposit amount is KRW 25 million, and the management expenses (monthly tax) is KRW 400,000 per month.

However, in fact, on November 16, 2016, a decision was made to compulsorily commence auction auction on the building by designating the lessee F of the building as the creditor. On December 5, 2016, other lessee G of the building filed a lawsuit for refund of deposit against the defendant and the defendant was served a duplicate of the complaint on December 12, 2016. On February 20, 2017, the above G was decided to commence auction on the building by designating the lessee as the creditor, and thus, the defendant was obligated to notify the lessee of the fact that the compulsory commencement of auction was decided on the leased object.

B. At the time, the Defendant was liable for a loan of approximately KRW 70 million to the lessee of the building, and approximately KRW 800,000 was liable for the repayment of the deposit to the lessee, and was given a repayment of the deposit to the lessee with the deposit received from the new lessee, and there was no other periodical income or property. Therefore, even if the lessee received the deposit from the victim, he was planned to use the deposit to repay the existing deposit with the money, and there was no intention or ability to return the deposit after the termination of the lease

Nevertheless, the defendant did not notify the victim of the decision to commence compulsory auction, and as if he had the ability to return the lease deposit normally.