The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor to the summary of the grounds for appeal, the court below acquitted the defendant of the facts charged in this case, although the defendant could sufficiently recognize the fact that he had by deceiving the victim, which is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts or in the misapprehension of legal principles.

2. Determination

A. On February 25, 2014, the Defendant’s summary of the facts charged in this part of the charges is required to pay the balance to the victim E (51) in the D Judicial Scriveners Office located in Gwangju-dong-gu, Gwangju-gu, to purchase real estate located in the D Judicial Scriveners Office.

It is intended to set up a collateral security after transferring the ownership of the permissible real estate for security.

In order to establish a right to lease on a deposit basis for real estate located in Gwangju North-gu G, and to make a provisional registration of the right to claim for the transfer of ownership for real estate located in Seo-gu, Gwangju-gu.

The loan money will be repaid by April 25, 2014, and approximately KRW 4 million of the monthly interest will be paid by approximately KRW 2 million.

“.....”

However, at the time, the Defendant agreed to acquire approximately KRW 1.6 billion of bank loans by purchasing real estate at approximately KRW 1.6 billion, but the economic situation was difficult to pay interest, and the Defendant promised to provide security to the victim.

G Real estate and H real estate were hard to repay the money or provide effective security even if they are borrowed from the injured party, such as the right to collateral security.

As above, Defendant 1 made a false statement to the victim, and he obtained 150 million won from the victim to receive 150 million won from the victim on the same day.

B. The lower court determined as follows, comprehensively taking account of the evidence adopted by the lower court, i.e., ① the victim was present at the court of the lower court as a witness and did not hear the language of lending money directly from the Defendant at the time of February 25, 2014, and was unable to hear the name of the Defendant, and thereafter, in 2014.