The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

A. In determining the facts, even if G did not notify G of the fact that the mortgagee would establish the right to preferential payment of the lease deposit for the apartment of this case, even if G did not secure the prior right to preferential payment of the lease deposit for the apartment of this case, the secured obligation of this case was limited to 60% of the apartment price, and since the Defendant paid a loan normally for two years prior to the lease period, it did not have any intent or ability to return the lease deposit at the time of the lease contract. In addition, since the Defendant did not have any legal obligation to secure the prior right to preferential payment of G, it did not constitute the act of deception, the lower court erred in the misapprehension of the facts charged of this case.

B. The sentence of imprisonment (one year of imprisonment) imposed by the court below on the defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. The summary of the facts charged was to purchase the instant apartment and complete the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Defendant on October 15, 2010.

The Defendant entered into a lease agreement with the victim G on October 4, 2010, under which the F Licensed Real Estate Agent Office located in Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, for the instant apartment as the lease deposit of KRW 85 million and the lease term of KRW 15 million from October 15, 2010 to October 15, 2012. On October 15, 2010, the Defendant would simultaneously complete the registration of the ownership transfer of the said apartment under the name of the Defendant on October 15, 2010, and at the same time have completed the registration of the ownership transfer of the said apartment in the name of the Nam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, the maximum debt amount of KRW 134,400,00 with the maximum debt amount of KRW 134,40,