The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the Defendant, as stated in the judgment of the court below, was entitled to transfer the right to lease of E in fact to the victim, and thus, there is no fact of deceiving the victim as if he did not have such right as above.

Nevertheless, the court below found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (an amount of KRW 3 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, namely, ① according to Article 5 of the Real Estate Lease Agreement, a document written around March 5, 2015, which was a disposition made between the Defendant and D factory, the Defendant, the lessee, stated that the Defendant may not transfer the right to lease to a third party or sublet all or part of the leased object (in the investigation record, 59 pages), and ② the Defendant would transfer the right to lease to the victim E in the dormitory of D factory employees around March 19, 2015.

From that time to April 7, 2015, the Defendant received money from the injured party as the price for acquisition. At that time, the Defendant did not obtain the consent on the transfer of the right of lease from the D factory side, and ③ the Defendant also received the right of lease from N around 2008, and thus, the right of lease can be transferred to the injured party.

I think that it was

However, unless there is a clear consent from the lessor of D factory, such circumstance alone has the right to transfer the right of lease to the defendant.

On the other hand, the Defendant alleged to the effect that he/she obtained consent to the transfer of right of lease from H Company OO’s vice head, but failed to submit objective materials supporting this.

In addition, even if it is based on the self-statement on August 16, 2017 submitted by the defendant in the trial, the defendant approves the vice-director of H company.