All appeals filed by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendants 1) In fact, misunderstanding of the legal principles and misunderstanding of the legal principles, the Defendants would lease an apartment to the victim in a state where the refund of the lease deposit is not problematic.

It is desirable to rent apartment houses with no loans secured by apartment.

There is no rumor, and the actual victim had resided in the apartment as stated in the judgment below (hereinafter “the apartment of this case”). However, the case where the injured party was the director before the expiration of the lease term and the Defendants did not immediately return the lease deposit immediately. Thus, there was no fact that the Defendants acquired the amount equivalent to the lease deposit of the victim’s apartment.

In addition, since the victim and the defendants are relatives, the crime of this case constitutes a crime subject to victim's complaint. Since the victim filed a complaint on this case after six months passed from the time he became aware of the crime, the above complaint cannot be punished against the defendants on the ground that it is unlawful.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (for each of the Defendants, six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In addition to the circumstances revealed by the lower court in light of the lower court’s factual misunderstanding and legal doctrine, the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, namely, the victim occupied the apartment of this case only before March 2016. The deposit for the lease on a deposit basis in this case was paid on or around December 2015, which was three months prior to the lapse of three months thereafter. However, the circumstances surrounding the Defendants’ demand for the deposit for the lease on a deposit basis (which was presented in advance to the tenants living in the apartment of this case) were false, and the maximum amount of the bond was set higher than the purchase price for the apartment of this case, and the Defendants’ demand for the repayment of the said debt has been reduced.