The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul Central District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The summary of the facts charged of this case is as follows: “The defendant was entrusted with the right to operate and manage the building by E, the owner of the theater located in the sixth floor of the Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government building C (hereinafter “the theater of this case”) and entered into a lease agreement with the victim G on the sixth floor of this case. The defendant was urged by C the management body of the building C to pay the unpaid management expenses of the theater of this case by KRW 120 million,00,000,000,000, and the defendant did not request the victim to pay the management expenses of the screen golf course of this case at the time of auction. However, even though the defendant did not request the victim to pay the unpaid management expenses of the theater of this case where the head of the management office intends to remove for the operation of the screen golf course of this case, he requested the victim to pay the amount of KRW 20,000,000 in advance. When sending the advance payment of management expenses, he would receive the receipts and receive them.”

In this regard, the defendant received the statement from the Director of the Management Office I that he would advance some of the unpaid management expenses for the construction of a screen golf course, and delivered it to the victim for advance payment, and did not deceiving the victim as stated in the facts charged. The victim could offset the management expenses paid in advance by the management expenses to be paid after the date of commencement of the screen golf course business, so it is difficult to deem that he suffered property loss. The defendant argued that he did not have the intention to return the difference after settling the balance with the money invested by the defendant for the screen golf course business.

In full view of the evidence in its holding, the court below made a deposit for management expenses even if the Director I urged the defendant to pay unpaid management expenses.