The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

The defendant did not deceiving the victim with respect to the right to sublease the house, and was sufficient to pay the sublease deposit from the victim at the time of the sublease. The defendant's act does not constitute fraud.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous.

Judgment

On December 22, 2015, the Defendant entered into a sub-lease contract with the victim B, stating that “When entering into a sub-lease contract with the lessee of the house C in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government with the deposit amount of KRW 5 million and KRW 1.5 million per month, the Defendant would allow the said house to be used and return the deposit at the end of the contract period,” and that the sub-lease contract was concluded between the victim and the victim on the same day under the above conditions.

However, in fact, the Defendant did not have the right to sublease the said house solely because it was merely a joint lessee who jointly leased the said house and did not bear the rent deposit, and thus, the Defendant did not have the right to sublease the said house at the time of the instant case. On the contrary, it did not have any particular property, and used monthly income of KRW 1.7 million for full-time living expenses and repayment of the obligation, and even if he received five million won of the sublease deposit from the complainant, there was no intention or ability to return it later.

Nevertheless, on the same day, the Defendant received 1 million won as the sub-lease deposit from the victim, and 4 million won as the remainder of the sub-lease on January 12, 2016, respectively, from the Defendant’s bank account in the name of the Defendant.

Accordingly, the defendant was given property by deceiving the victim.

The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged by taking account of the evidence in its judgment.

The establishment of fraud by the defendant of the legal doctrine related to the judgment of the court shall be determined at the time of the act, and the economic situation after the act has been changed.