The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In determining the facts, the Defendant did not know that, at the time of delivering a store, which is the object of the instant lease, and returning the lease deposit from the victim, the Credit Business chain was subject to seizure and orders in full, and thus, did not deceive the victim as stated in the judgment of the court below.

B. The lower court’s sentence (two million won of fine) imposed on the Defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant: (a) obtained a loan from “high M” with the security of the deposit for the lease of a restaurant store operated by the Defendant on November 21, 201 and January 4, 2012; (b) transferred the above deposit amount of KRW 30 million to “high M”; (c) on January 5, 2012, there was a provision prohibiting the transfer of the deposit; (b) around January 2012, the Defendant did not repay the loan; and (d) around January 2012, the “high M” was the Defendant as the debtor; and (c) the victim was issued an order of seizure and assignment upon request by the third debtor of the building owner, who was the lessor; and (d) the victim did not have any problem of requesting the return of the deposit for the above lease deposit from “T” and did not have any direct title to the assignment order after deducting the remainder of the deposit.