The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In relation to the misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles, there was the criminal intent of the Defendant to commit deception and fraud, which is a constituent element of fraud.

Although the court below rendered not guilty of this part of the facts charged, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts and by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court (ten months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, and one hundred and sixty hours of community service) is too uncomfortable and unfair.

2. Judgment on the grounds for appeal

A. Judgment 1 on the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles 1) The summary of this part of the facts charged is as follows: (a) the Defendant, at the K Office located in the JJ of the Donsan-gun of Chungcheongnam-gun on June 2013, the Defendant owned the victim “ Donsan-gun M et al., and M will purchase only KRW 10,00 at the N University within a rapid time.

On the face of the loan of KRW 100 million, the said land was sold, plus the interest of KRW 20 million, and the said land was paid in KRW 120 million until August 30, 2013.

However, the Defendant did not have any specific sales negotiation or arrangement with N University in connection with the sale of the above M land. The Defendant did not have any intent or ability to pay the personal debt amounting to KRW 300 million in bad credit condition at the time, and the Defendant did not have any dispute over O and ownership, and even if he borrowed money from the damaged party, such as the establishment of the right to collateral security of the maximum amount of KRW 430 million in the amount of the claim with O as the obligor, the Defendant did not have any intent or ability to pay such money.

The defendant deceivings the victim as above and received KRW 100 million from the injured party on or around June 11, 2013.

2) The lower court’s judgment did not have any intention or plan to sell to the N University two parcels of land (hereinafter “the instant M”) other than Chungcheong-gun M (hereinafter “the instant land”) as indicated in the facts charged by the Defendant solely based on the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, which was written in detail in the part of the lower judgment of not guilty.