The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the defendant was not an apartment owned by the defendant but an auction is being conducted. Thus, although there was no deception, the court below convicted the defendant, the court below erred in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. The following circumstances found by the evidence duly adopted and examined at the lower court and the trial court: (i) if the victim was not the actual owner at the time of the lease agreement and was aware of the fact that a voluntary auction was commenced, it would have not been paid monthly on a one-year basis; (ii) the Defendant voluntarily discarded the victim’s goods due to the change of the owner due to the voluntary auction, and did not notify the victim of the fact; and (iii) the Defendant would be an auction rather than the other lessee.

However, L does not seem to have any such content at the time of the contract, and thereafter, L did not seem to have been an issue because L did not have any other content at the time of the contract, and since L did not have a copy of the register and the defendant would be asked

In light of the fact that the defendant was expected to live together with the victim by seeking apartment buildings in other places, but failed to seek such apartment buildings, etc., the fact that the defendant is the owner of the apartment to be leased to the victim as stated in the facts charged and that the auction has been commenced is sufficiently recognized by not notifying the fact that the auction has commenced.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of facts is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendant's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.