beta
Text
The defendant shall be innocent.
Reasons
1. The summary of the facts charged states that, around September 17:00 on September 8, 201, the Defendant: (a) was “E Real Estate Brokerage Office” located in Kuri-si that he/she works as a brokerage assistant; and (b) the Defendant did not have any intent or ability to act as a broker for the victim to enter into a lease agreement by seeking a house for the victim even if he/she received money from the victim F; and (c) was false to the said victim that “I leave the said victim as he/she is responsible for and obtained the house.”
As above, the Defendant, as the victim, made a false statement to the victim, received from the victim the amount of KRW 25 million on September 8, 201, KRW 10 million on October 15, 201, KRW 5 million on November 8, 201, and KRW 40 million on November 8, 201, and acquired it as a lease contract and deposit money.
2. Summary of the defendant and defense counsel;
A. G in the Defendant’s office around September 8, 201 only borrowed KRW 20 million from the victim, and the Defendant did not receive KRW 25 million from the victim on September 8, 201 or KRW 10 million on October 15, 201.
B. Upon request by the victim, on October 24, 201, the Defendant: (a) arranged a contract to rent a house located in the Guri-si I owned by his female from H to KRW 110 million; (b) provided the victim with a down payment of KRW 5 million on the date of the contract; and (c) paid KRW 5 million on November 8, 201, and KRW 10 million on the date of the contract, to the JJ, a tenant of the said house.
However, when the victim failed to prepare the balance of the lease deposit and the lease contract was terminated, the Defendant had the leased contract between K and H for the victim, and subsequently, had the Defendant recovered the lease contract between K and H from December 2, 201 to January 20, 201, and refunded the money from H’s husband from L to January 20, 201, and had the victim refunded the money, and there is no fact that the Defendant received 40 million won from the victim as the lease deposit as stated in the facts charged.
3. The facts charged are consistent with the judgment.