The defendant shall be innocent.

1. Around August 3, 2012, the Defendant: (a) was sentenced on July 12, 201 to deliver the said officetel to D in breach of the lease agreement by leasing the said officetel from around September 2011 to using it; and (b) was unable to use the said officetel; (c) even if the Defendant received the lease deposit from the victim F due to a lack of special property or certain income, the Defendant had a legitimate authority to use the said officetel, and (d) was able to use the said officetel without the Defendant’s consent or ability to return it, and (e) was able to use the said officetel under the name of the Defendant, by concluding the said sub-lease agreement with the victim, and obtaining a monthly rent from the victim on August 12, 2013, by sub-lease the said officetel; and (e) obtained the said officetel from the victim on August 10, 2013, by taking advantage of the intent or capacity to return it.

2. Determination:

A. Since the monthly rent of the instant officetel’s assertion by the Defendant and his defense counsel was paid by the Defendant’s mother, the Defendant was unaware of the fact that it was the monthly rent, and the Defendant was sentenced to the delivery decision on the instant officetel. As such, there was no awareness that the Defendant was deceiving the victim in subleting the instant officetel and there was no intention to commit fraud.

B. Determination 1) We examine the following circumstances: (a) The police interrogation protocol of the Defendant against the Defendant, first of all, denies its content in this court; (b) the Defendant’s admissibility is denied; and (c) the following circumstances, i.e., the Defendant’s mother’s name on September 7, 201; (d) the instant officetel’s deposit 10 million won, monthly rent 1.5 million won, and the lease period.