The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows: (a) it was difficult for the Defendant to pay KRW 200 million to the victim the sum of the investment principal and dividends within three months since there was no means to secure additional construction cost even if the Defendant received an investment of KRW 100 million from the victim and completed the civil engineering works; and (b) it was possible for the Defendant to cancel the above right to claim transfer of ownership under the H’s name prior to the victim’s right to collateral security to be converted into the principal registration and thus, the said right to claim transfer

Nevertheless, the court below acquitted the charged facts of this case. The court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged is a person who runs construction business under the trade name of E Co., Ltd.

On May 19, 2009, the Defendant made a false statement to the effect that “The Defendant would return KRW 200 million in cash, including the dividend amount of KRW 100 million after three months, to the victim F, when developing, selling, or constructing the instant land by developing three parcels, including both-gun-gun G, Gangwon-do (hereinafter “instant parcels”) located in the south-gu, Cheongju-si.”

However, the Defendant started the civil construction work by lending KRW 500 million from others, and as above, at the time of receiving the investment money, the mortgage-mortgage on the fourth parcel of land of this case, which was created to the victim, had also been likely to be converted into the principal registration by borrowing money from others and making a promise for sale and purchase registration. In addition, the construction cost to be entered exceeds KRW 2 billion, and the intention or ability to return the investment money to the victim in a short period was lacking.

On June 4, 2009, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as such, received KRW 100 million from the victim to the national bank account under the name of the Defendant on the pretext of investment.

B. The lower court’s determination is as follows.