The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

On December 24, 1996, the Defendant concluded a lease contract with C on approximately 40 square meters and approximately 80 square meters underground floor of the Seodaemun-gu Seoul Building D, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul (hereinafter referred to as “instant underground floor”; the second underground floor of the above building is referred to as “the instant underground floor”; and the first and second floors above the above underground floor are referred to as “each building of this case”; and the first and second floors above are referred to as “each building of this case,” respectively, with the lease deposit amount of KRW 20 million and five million monthly rent, and around that time, the Defendant issued the full deposit amount of KRW 20 million to C; on January 1, 2004, with the conclusion of a renewal contract with C on the instant underground floor, and thus, the lower court found the lease deposit amount of KRW 20 million to be reduced to KRW 100,000,000,000,0000,000,000 won to be refunded to Seoul District Prosecutors' Office and KRW 31.5 billion.

Judgment

On August 27, 2012, the summary of the facts charged in the instant case was obtained by the Defendant, as the owner of the Seodaemun-gu Seoul Western District Public Prosecutor’s Office’s Office, that “C, as the owner of the building D in Seodaemun-gu, entered into a lease agreement with the complainant to lease the above 1 and 200 million Won of the leased deposit, and received KRW 200 million of the leased deposit after receiving the leased deposit from the complainant, but the complainant did not comply with the demand for the return of the leased deposit. Rather, the Defendant did not have a duty to return the leased deposit by deceiving the court by submitting various false documents, such as a false estimate, construction specifications, etc., for the purpose of acquiring the leased deposit, and by deceiving the court.