The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. When concluding a sublease contract with the victim, the Defendant, who is a sub-lease of the gist of the grounds for appeal, silentd the fact that the Jinman had seized his claim for the refund of the deposit for the lease of the UN (hereinafter “claim for the deposit of this case”). If the victim knew the fact, it constitutes deception by omission, since the contract for the sub-lease was not concluded if the victim knew the fact.

Even if it is not so, the defendant is well aware of the construction work of rental apartment, so it is possible to pay the deposit money of this case and the sub-lease deposit by conversion for sale in lots.

Since the victim actively induces the damaged person, this constitutes deception by commission.

In any case, even though it is recognized that the money for sub-lease by the defendant's deception has been acquired, the court below has sentenced not guilty, and it is unfair.

2. Determination [Judgment of deception by omission] In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the court below and the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, it is difficult to recognize that the defendant has a duty to inform the victim of the attachment of the instant security deposit claims.

First of all, the Defendant and the victim did not premised on the lessor’s consent while entering into a sub-lease contract. Therefore, the victim cannot have the right of direct claim or priority for the instant deposit claims against the lessor.

Therefore, because the claim of this case under private law is merely a property of the defendant's general responsibility, the defendant is obligated to notify the sub-lessee of the detailed state of his/her responsible property or the ability to repay the sub-lease deposit, which does not guarantee the sub-lease deposit.

It is difficult to recognize it.

In fact, the defendant and the victim have prepared a promissory note process certificate to secure the deposit for sub-lease.