The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Progress of judgment and scope of judgment of this court;

A. The lower court convicted the Defendant of the total amount of KRW 80 million as to the dividends of the instant facts charged, and sentenced the Defendant to a fine of KRW 5 million.

2) As to this, the Defendant appealed on the grounds of mistake of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles and unreasonable sentencing.

The judgment prior to the remand does not have any reason to believe that there is a deception, or that there is a misunderstanding of the facts and legal principles of the defendant who contests the criminal intent of deception, or fraud, but at least the defendant actually paid to the lessor in relation to the calculation of the amount of deception

For the part of KRW 30 million, it is difficult to recognize the criminal intent of defraudation by the defendant.

Recognizing the Defendant’s misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles as to the amount of reporting fraud, the lower judgment was reversed and the Defendant sentenced to a fine of KRW 2 million against the Defendant, on the ground that only the part of KRW 50 million among the facts charged in this case was found guilty, and that the above part of KRW 30 million was not guilty.

3) The Prosecutor appealed on the ground of misunderstanding of legal principles as to the acquittal portion of the judgment of the court prior to remand. The Supreme Court’s ground of appeal by the Prosecutor is with merit for the following reasons.

On the other hand, the judgment of the court prior to the remanding the above 30 million won ought to be reversed. However, this part was reversed on the ground that the judgment of the court prior to the remanding the case should be sentenced to a single sentence on the ground that the judgment of the court prior to the remanding the case constitutes a single crime of KRW 50 million and a single sentence.

The facts of this case include the former Act on the Protection of Commercial Building Lease (amended by Act No. 10303, May 17, 2010) and the Enforcement Decree thereof (amended by Presidential Decree No. 20970, Aug. 21, 2008; Presidential Decree No. 22283, Jul. 21, 2010; hereinafter “Enforcement Decree of the amended Act”) where the Defendant claimed a preferential repayment of the deposit for the lease on the store of this case and demanded a distribution on April 27, 2010.