A. The victim C was aware of the fact of the transfer of the deposit between the Defendant and I and the fact of the lawsuit, thereby not constituting a crime of fraud against the Defendant.

B. M, the representative of the victim L L for the resolution of a merger, is expected to return to a large amount of profit when the defendant won a lawsuit for return of land in progress, and the defendant has not paid any money that the victim would make an additional investment, and therefore, the crime of fraud is not established against the defendant.

B. The sentence of the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The fraud against the victim C was committed by the Plaintiff, who was the father of the Defendant, on January 7, 2007, and the owner, AG, and I transferred the claim for the return of the lease deposit of AG to I by means of a new lease agreement that changed the lessee into I. As such, the Defendant did not have the right to dispose of the claim for the return of the lease deposit of the above building on May 27, 2008, and before the above agreement was entered into, the favorable judgment was rendered on April 4, 2008 (the Defendant appealeded on May 13, 2008) in the lawsuit seeking the delivery of the above building against the Defendant by I prior to the above agreement (the notice was served and the Defendant appealed appealed on May 13, 2008). Nevertheless, upon considering the trust of the above agreement with the Defendant and the cancellation of the registration of the establishment of the right to collateral security on May 28, 2008, the Defendant was aware that the victim was deprived of the right to lease.

It is difficult to see it.

We cannot accept this part of the defendant's argument.

B. The court below's decision on the fraud against the victim L for the resolution of the conflict of interest is in detail with the financial situation of the defendant, the name of the loan and the use of the loan.