The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts1) The Defendant did not have any fact that he trusted the instant apartment to P. The Defendant did not have any title trust with P. However, the Defendant did not know that P used the instant apartment and provided it as security to the victim, and did not participate in it. 2) The victim did not confirm the existence of the lessee on the instant apartment and provided the loan to P with belief only the details of the transfer household inspection issued by the Defendant without confirming the existence of the lessee, which was caused by the negligence of the victim, and not by the Defendant’s deception.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (ten months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) First of all, we examine the argument that the Defendant did not title the instant apartment to P, or did not participate in the receipt of a security loan by P. Comprehensively taking account of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, it is sufficiently recognized that the Defendant, as the facts charged in the instant case, by deceiving the victim to obtain details of the transfer household inspection entered into the instant apartment as the lessee, and by deceiving the victim to obtain the loan under the name of P. (A) the Defendant was paid the difference on the condition that he did not purchase the instant apartment from G, the original owner of the instant apartment, but succeeds to the obligation to refund the security deposit in excess of the purchase price.

Therefore, the defendant was clearly aware that the tenant exists in the apartment of this case and that if the apartment of this case excluded the lease deposit, the collateral value remains almost.

Nevertheless, there is a need to do so.