The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

Even if the provisional attachment against the E site and F site and the two zones above that have been made by D, the Defendant was unable to obtain additional loans as security even if the provisional attachment against D was rescinded, and eventually, D did not have any intention or ability to return KRW 100 million of the deposit for the lease until May 10, 2012.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that found the defendant not guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment, so long as the defendant stated that the defendant would return the security deposit if the provisional seizure is cancelled" and caused D to cancel the registration of provisional seizure, it can be sufficiently recognized that the intention of the defendant to acquire the crime of fraud

Judgment

The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant: (a) around March 2012, at the end of Seodaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, lent KRW 200 million to the victim D who is a tenant at the end of the 3rd floor of Seodaemun-gu, Seoul; (b) “The Defendant would refund the deposit for lease until May 10, 2012, by the cancellation of provisional seizure against the house that he did not receive KRW 100 million; (c) but (d) the Defendant did not have any special revenue, but did not receive KRW 200 million from the Han Bank as collateral; (d) the Defendant did not receive additional loan from the Han Bank as collateral; (e) borrowed KRW 100 million from G as collateral; (e) the Defendant did not receive KRW 100 million from the remainder of the provisional seizure but did not receive KRW 500,000,000,000,000 from the remainder of the real estate after the lapse of 500,000,000 won.

Nevertheless, it is not appropriate.