All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, at the time of entering into a contract with the victim I, J, for the purpose of normally using the victim's notice as well as returning the deposit at the time of the expiration of the contract, and thus, the Defendant did not have any intent to commit deception or fraud, the lower court convicted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged by misapprehending the legal doctrine or by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

B. According to the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor (1) and the Prosecutor’s misunderstanding of the facts or the misapprehension of the legal principles, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the charge by deceiving the victim C, D, and E in total amount of KRW 80 million. However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine or acquitted the Defendant of this part

(2) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (two years of suspended sentence for one year of imprisonment) is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s judgment as to the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine were duly adopted and investigated. In other words, the Defendant: (a) concluded a monthly rent contract with the owner of the F building in Mapo-gu Seoul on September 10, 2010 and KRW 60 million; (b) the monthly rent with the owner of the five floors; and (c) thereafter, operated the mutual public notice source called “H room room tele” at the above place from the time when the contract was concluded for the monthly rent contract with the office with the five-year rental period; (d) on March 23, 2012, the Defendant filed a lawsuit seeking delivery of the building, etc. from G without delay on several occasions, and on March 23, 2012, filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff (the owner of the building).

“A mediation was established. ② At the time of entering into a “public announcement entry contract (sub-lease contract)” with the victim I and J, the Defendant could delay the payment of two or more rents to request G to deliver the building at any time, and at any time there was a financial institution’s obligation equivalent to approximately KRW 20 million, and the Defendant was from the loan and the former lessee.