The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Of the lower judgment that mismisunderstanding the facts, the Defendant would use the full deposit amount of the lease deposit at the time of the instant lease agreement to repay the secured debt under priority order.

Although there was no deception, such as promising deception, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact, thereby recognizing the intent of deception and deception by the Defendant.

B. In light of the various sentencing conditions of this case where sentencing is unfair, the sentence of two-year imprisonment, which the court below decided against the defendant, is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant asserted the same purport in the lower court, and the lower court, based on the evidence duly admitted and investigated, determined as indicated in its reasoning, held that the Defendant would use most of the deposit money for the repayment of the obligation guaranteed by senior collateral security.

Inasmuch as the instant lease contract was entered into and was actually used for the above purpose, it is possible to recognize all the Defendant’s intent of deception and deception.

The decision was determined.

In light of the above evidence, the above judgment of the court below is just in examining the circumstances acknowledged by the court below in light of the above evidence, and there are errors as alleged by the defendant.

subsection (b) of this section.

B. In light of the fact that the instant damages did not recover even though the amount of damage caused to the Defendant did not reach a large amount of judgment on the illegal claim for sentencing, and that the Defendant had a record of criminal punishment several times, the sentence of the Defendant’s sentence seems inevitable.

However, even as the above victim or intermediary, it is anticipated that it may be difficult to recover the deposit from the real estate subject to the lease contract of this case through the analysis of the right that is ordinarily taken by the lessee.