However, as above, the real estate contract provided as security has already expired the contract term, and the actual deposit is owned by FF, so the defendant did not have any right to it, and even if the repayment period for lending money to E who is a successor, it was not clear whether or not profit was made at least one month or later than the due date for payment to the victim, and even if the suspect did not borrow money from the victim because there was no certain income, it was no intention or ability to repay it.

Nevertheless, the defendant deceivings the victim as above and acquired the amount of KRW 60 million from the victim.

2. Determination

A. The defendant and his defense counsel asserted that ① the defendant explained the investment recommendation from the latter E to the complainant and borrowed the amount of KRW 60 million from the latter E, and ② the real estate lease contract provided as security to the complainant was expired at the time of borrowing the above amount, but the lease term under the contract was expired at the time of borrowing the above amount. However, the defendant's husband and wife continued to reside in the above area and the lease contract was implicitly renewed, so the contract is valid as a lease contract. Thus, the defendant did not have the intention to acquire it.

(b) examining the facts of recognition, as well as witness E.