Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

However, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for a period of one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

A is a truster who has entrusted No. 1013 of Etel sold as owned by the principal on February 25, 2015 to Luxembourg Trust Co., Ltd., and Defendant B is a person who takes charge of contractual affairs with the authority delegated by the Defendant to lease the above officetel.

On March 5, 2015, the Defendants entered into a real estate lease agreement with the victim G for the said 1013 as the lessor A, lease deposit 25 million won, and one-year rental period for the said 1013 at the office of the sales agent of the said 2st office located in the Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City. On March 5, 2015, the Defendants transferred the down payment of KRW 2.5 million to the Defendant A’s account on the date of the contract from the damaged party, and had the victim transfer the remainder of KRW 2.5 million to the former lessee under the said 1013 on behalf of the victim.

However, according to the above trust contract, even if the defendant A could not lease the above 1013 without prior consent of the above pathic trust, he did not obtain prior consent from the victim, and without giving an important explanation of the fact of the trust to the victim, by deceiving the defendant A as being a legitimate lessor, and then by deceiving the victim as if he were a legitimate lessor, he acquired KRW 25 million.

Summary of Evidence

1. The Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Each legal statement of the witness H and I;

1. Statement made by the prosecution with regard to G;

1. Statement made by the police to J;

1. In the investigation report (the telephone investigation by the person in charge of the old credit union loan), investigation report (the director of the certified judicial scrivener office), and I telephone investigation (the defendants and their defense counsel are not aware of the fact that the trust registration of the above officetels was made, so they have the intent to commit fraud.

I argue to the effect that it cannot be seen.

On the other hand, the following circumstances revealed in the evidence duly adopted and examined by this Court, i.e., the Defendant A cannot enter into a lease agreement under the name of the trust company if the trust agreement is concluded because the said officetel belongs to the trust company, and then the consent of the trust company is obtained.