The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence presented by the prosecutor as to the gist of the grounds for appeal, the fact that the defendant did not have been promised by the lessor to return the remaining security deposit except the monthly rent unpaid at any time, and that the defendant acquired the money by fraud with the victim's 250 million won to be used as the security deposit even though the victim has no intent or ability to return the borrowed money if the above security deposit is not received.

Even so, the lower court rendered a judgment of innocence against the Defendant by misunderstanding the facts.

2. The court below was justified in finding the Defendant not guilty of the instant facts charged in light of the following circumstances found by the evidence duly admitted and examined by Daehan at the court below.

(1) When considering the details of the agreement (13-14 pages of investigation records) entered into between the Defendant and the victim and the circumstances at the time, the victim is clearly aware of the prospects for duty-free shop business that the Defendant intends to lease the store in this case.

It seems that the defendant delivered 250 million won to the defendant based on the judgment.

The victim was provided with the stocks and the management rights of H corporation operated by the defendant as a collateral for a loan claim, had the right to supervise the financial affairs of duty-free shop business profits, and 30% of the monthly profits were settled.

In consideration of the fact that the contract for the return of deposit claimed by the victim is not stipulated in the agreement, and that the victim has received the lease contract for the burial of this case (52-71 pages of investigation records) and did not raise any objection to the non-special agreement for the return of deposit (29 pages of investigation records), the special agreement for the return of deposit was an important cause for the victim to deliver KRW 250 million to the defendant.

It is difficult to readily conclude.

② The Defendant is a stock company from January 2016 to February 2016, 2016, before receiving KRW 250 million from the victim.