The judgment below

The guilty portion shall be reversed.

The punishment of the accused shall be determined by two years and six months of imprisonment.

In this case.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, misunderstanding of legal principles and 1) 2017 high 280 Defendant 5 had concluded a contract to lease on a deposit basis with the victim V, immediately cancelled the registration of the right to lease under the former lessee and tried to have the victim registered the right to lease on a deposit basis, but the victim was waiting for a discharge of the object of lease on a deposit basis due to changing the object of lease from another after moving into the area to the south and waiting for a discharge of the right to lease on a deposit basis only prevents another creditor from completing the registration of the right to lease on a deposit basis.

Even so, the court below held that the defendant had no intention or ability to establish a right to lease on a deposit basis at the time of the contract.

Since the court below found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, it erred by misunderstanding the facts and misunderstanding the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2) At the time of entering into each sales contract, Defendant 201, as the 2017 Highest 281, had a tenant on each object.

With the notification of the termination of the lease contract, the lessee to pay the monthly rent of KRW 400,000 to KRW 5 million, and the lessee to reside in the lease contract was agreed to pay the monthly rent until then, and there was no deception on the amount of deposit.

However, the court below found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, and there is an error of law by misunderstanding the facts and misunderstanding of legal principles which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

3) Defendant 280, 282, 283, 284, and 285 did not intend to acquire the deposits of lease from the victims, as it has sufficient financial resources at the time each lease contract was concluded.

However, it is only impossible to return the lease deposit to the victims due to the sudden difficulties of the lease business after the fact.

Even so, the lower court held that the Defendant was in excess of the obligation at the time of entering into each lease agreement.

Determination of this part of the facts charged was found guilty.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is erroneous.