Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

On November 15, 2011, the Defendant sent KRW 22,50,000 to the private teaching institute operator among the tenants of the building in relation to the return of the deposit for the commercial lease of the commercial lease operated jointly by the Defendant and the victim D. The Defendant made a false statement.

However, in fact, since the deposit to be returned to the operator of a private teaching institute is KRW 35 million, the victim only required to pay KRW 17.5 million half of the amount, so the defendant only intended to use the difference for personal purposes, and there was no intention to return it as a deposit.

Nevertheless, the defendant received 20,500,000 won from the damaged person to the account in the name of the defendant on the same day and acquired the property equivalent to the above difference.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of the witness D;

1. A copy of the passbook and a copy of the lease contract (Evidence No. 15,16 of the evidence list) [the defendant and his defense counsel] / The defendant and his defense counsel requested the victim to pay 35 million won and 7.5 million won of the deposit to be returned to the private teaching institute because they agreed that the co-owners shall pay to E, as compensation for the failure to receive 1.5 million won of the monthly rent which was already paid, as the lease contract with the private teaching institute where E, who is the defendant's wife, was terminated, to receive 1.5 million won of the monthly rent paid. As such, the defendant and his defense counsel demanded the victim to pay 35 million won and 7.5 million won of the deposit to be paid to E, one half of which is 42.5 million won of the deposit to be paid to the private teaching institute. The victim's error is discovered and the difference was settled by the return of the deposit and other expenses.

The argument is asserted.

However, if a store becomes a public room and becomes unable to receive monthly rent, as alleged by the defendant, the monthly rent of the existing other stores is divided by co-owners, and the security amount equivalent to the amount that can be paid for that monthly rent is limited to the amount that can be paid for.