The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. On November 22, 2011, the summary of the grounds for appeal states that “where a secured loan is succeeded, the certificate of promissory note subscription shall be null and void.” This case’s promissory note No. notarial deed is consistently stated to secure the succession of a secured loan from L investigation agency to the court of original instance. In fact, the succession of a secured loan was made. Thus, the instant promissory note No. notarial deed is invalid in accordance with the aforementioned agreement.

In addition, in light of the fact that the Defendant applied for a compulsory auction with the title of execution of the aforesaid promissory note as an executor, even though L is unrelated to the aforesaid promissory note’s authentic deed, it is deemed that the Defendant was aware that the above promissory note’s authentic deed was null and void, and thus, the Defendant may be held guilty of fraud.

2. Examining the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the reasons of the judgment below, a thorough examination of the evidence and the reasoning of the judgment below reveals that L's statement on the process of preparing the Promissory Notes and the Agreement is doubtful credibility, and it cannot be deemed that the Defendant and L at the time agreed to the effect that only the Industrial Bank of Korea's succession to the secured loan obligation was made as security, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise. Even if the transfer of the secured loan obligation only guarantees the succession of the secured loan obligation, the Defendant did not inform the Defendant of the fact before commencing compulsory execution or request the return of the Promissory Notes even after the Defendant succeeded to the obligation of the Bank's secured loan from the injured party.