The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal states that the lease deposit is KRW 50 million to the victim E even though the lease deposit is KRW 50 million, and the victim lends KRW 25 million to the defendant due to the victim's false statement. As such, there is a causal relationship between the defendant's deception and the victim's disposal, and the defendant has the intent to commit fraud.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine that acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged is as indicated below.

B. According to the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant charges on the following grounds, while recognizing that the Defendant, even though the deposit for the lease of the fourth-class private teaching institute was KRW 50 million, was the victim’s KRW 100 million.

First, in light of the fact that the victim confirmed the lease contract, or did not confirm whether the lease deposit is KRW 100 million or not, and that the above money was lent to the lessor, the victim was in a business relationship with the defendant at the time, and the above money was considered to have been expenses necessary for moving the private teaching institute from the fourth to the third floor, it is insufficient to recognize that there was a causal relationship between the defendant's act of deception and the disposal of the victim, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

In addition, the fact that the Defendant was unable to repay KRW 20 million borrowed on March 30, 2012 by May 11, 2012, the due date is recognized. However, in light of the fact that the Defendant fully repaid the above amount from May 24, 2012 to June 20, 2012, the victim, before filing a complaint, completed an agreement between the Defendant and the victim on July 9, 2012, and fulfilled all the payment obligations under the agreement, submitted by the prosecutor.