On June 29, 2012, the Defendant was a broker when entering into a lease agreement with the victim E on June 29, 2012 as to “F apartment 101 Dong 1102, Busan Shipping Daegu, Busan, Busan, the broker.”

G through G, the maximum amount of senior mortgage claims is set at KRW 1,520,000,000,000 for the above building, which is likely to secure the repayment of the deposit of the deposit of the deposit of the deposit of the deposit of the lease of the lease of the lease of the lease of the lease of the lease of the lease of the lease

However, even if the Defendant received the deposit from the injured party for the lease on a deposit basis, the Defendant used the deposit for the cancellation of prior mortgage worth KRW 100,000,000 among them, the remaining amount was considered to be used as his own separate personal debt repayment, etc., and even if the said deposit was corrected without any change in the indictment, it is not deemed that the Defendant would have suffered a substantial disadvantage in exercising the Defendant’s right

The Defendant, through G, by deceiving the victim through this, received 370 million won as the deposit money for the lease on a deposit basis from the injured party during the day immediately after the day.

On September 28, 2016, the Defendant of the 2017 Highest 179, the Defendant, at the I shop located in the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government H around September 28, 2016, wishes to additionally operate the Victim J with the trade name of “L” in Dongdaemun-gu Seoul, Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul, and there is a need for money for various collection and internal construction.

When lending KRW 500,000,000 to the 500,000 won per month, the term “to pay the principal and to pay KRW 1,50,000 per month” was false.

However, in fact, at the time of bad credit, the Defendant did not reach KRW 300 million and did not make profits even after the Defendant operated, and did not change the deposit for the re-contract from the owner to the end of raising the deposit.