beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.
Reasons
1. The gist of the prosecutor’s appeal is that the Defendant, even if he/she received KRW 120 million from E, did not intend to cancel the registration of the right to lease for the former lessee, and even if he/she did not have the intent to return the lease deposit for the former lessee by any other means, he/she received the above lease deposit amount of KRW 120 million, and thus, he/she can fully recognize the criminal intent of deceptiveation.
The court below acquitted the charged facts of this case. The court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
2. Determination
A. The judgment of the court below is based on the premise that a person who intends to lease a usual house as a lease on a deposit basis of the objective data revealed through the real estate registry, etc. evaluated the remaining value of the house on the basis of the objective data, and concluded a contract for the lease deposit within the scope of the collateral value by mutual agreement with the lessor. Thus, under the premise that the circumstances where the lease deposit does not exceed the collateral value of the house, unless it appears that the lessor actively deceiving the lessee at the time of entering into the lease contract, the circumstances other than the house cannot be deemed as an element affecting the ability to return the lease deposit, unless it appears that the lessor actively induced the lessee at the time of entering into the lease contract, the lessor cannot be deemed as an element affecting the ability to return the lease deposit. In full view of the following circumstances, the court found that there was
(1) When a lessee receives a lease deposit, he/she shall immediately pay the deposit to the former tenant.
Defendant promised to E
It is difficult to see it.
Defendant asserted that there was no such promise as above, and E also provided the leased deposit in this Court.