The judgment below

The part of the case of the defendant is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the Defendant was granted the authority to conclude a lease contract from the building owners, and entered into a lease contract with the lessee. At the time of entering into the lease contract, the Defendant clearly notified that he was not the building owner through the staff members of the F in the Bank of Korea, etc., and the Defendant was not in excess of his liability and was capable of sufficiently returning the lease deposit.

However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, as it found all of the facts charged in this case guilty.

B. The punishment of the lower court (two years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s judgment and the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the first instance court as to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts, the Defendant’s assertion by the Defendant is recognized as having acquired the deposit money from the damaged lessee and acquired pecuniary benefits by violating the duties of the victim P, who is the owner of the building. Therefore, the above assertion by the Defendant is groundless

A. In light of the following circumstances as to whether the Defendant had the authority to conclude a lease contract, the Defendant appears to have concluded a lease contract with a lessee without obtaining authority from the owner of the building and received the deposit money for the lease contract.

(a) H 4 studio building I in the lower court’s decision that “There was no authority to conclude a charter agreement with the Defendant, as well as that of a charter agreement, and that there was no talking that it was a charter agreement.”

(b) “P of the building studio” stated in the court of the court below that “P of the building studio is only leased (monthly rent) and cleaning to the Defendant on a monthly basis by the court of the court below with no studio and 100% monthly rent.”

The low-income bracket does not need money due to the fact that the workplace lives and the loan is not possible.

There is no reason to transfer the monthly rent to make a pure profit, and to return the deposit.