The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

1. The summary of the facts charged is a person who operated C Co., Ltd. for the purpose of manufacturing, processing, and selling agricultural and fishery products from November 2004 to July 2014.

On May 2013, the Defendant stated to the effect that “H factory (school meal support center) as completed in March 2014 in the name of “C” to G, the representative of F (State) at the Daegu-gu office, Seo-gu, Daegu-gu, Daegu-gu, that “The Defendant intends to lease the “H factory” for three years under the name of “C (State) on condition that only various expenses, such as electricity and water rates, are paid for KRW 500 million.”

After that, around June 2013, the Defendant leased the above factory to the victim K through G through G at the J-office, Co., Ltd., Ltd., the Daegu Northern-gu Office I, 2013, and concluded that the above factory would be returned upon the termination of the lease term after the lease term expires.

However, in fact, C(State) in which the Defendant had operated was unable to repay loans and financial costs due to the rapid aggravation of the financial status from around 2011 to the year 2013, including the total net loss from the year 2011 to the year 2013, etc., and thus, there was no intention or ability to return the lease deposit after the expiration of the lease term even if it was received from the victim.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, as seen above, by deceiving the victim, received KRW 498,145,746 from June 25, 2013 to May 21, 2014 from the victim as a security deposit.

2. Judgment of the court below and a summary of the grounds for appeal

A. The lower court determined that the facts charged were guilty by comprehensively taking account of the adopted evidence.

B. Summary of the Reasons for Appeal 1) The money that the Defendant received from the victim of mistake of facts (hereinafter “instant money”).

(2) The lower court’s sentence of unfair sentencing was 2 years, not the lease deposit, but the Defendant did not have the intent to acquire by deception.