The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is relatively consistent, and in light of the fact that the defendant's statement was given in exchange with L of an individual among real estate, there is a content that the defendant would not have committed a promise and resolve the problem of the right to collateral security, and that there is no reason to prepare a multiple contract as alleged by the defendant, such as the defendant's assertion, it can be sufficiently recognized that the defendant, as shown in the facts charged of this case, he did not have the intent or ability to cancel the second-class collateral security established on his own forest and land and transfer ownership of ownership, he would obtain KRW 250 million as the victim's cancellation of the right to collateral security, and acquired KRW 65 million as the contract deposit and acquired KRW 315 million in total as the contract deposit.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant of the facts charged is erroneous in misconception of facts.

2. Issues of the instant case

A. First, in the instant sales contract, the sales price is KRW 650 million, and the down payment is KRW 650 million, and the remainder KRW 585 million is paid on the date of the contract and on June 17, 2013, respectively.

B. In relation to this, the victims asserted that the price is KRW 650 million as stated in the sales contract of this case, and KRW 250 million delivered to the defendant on the date of the contract, which is KRW 250 million, was paid in advance as the cancellation of the first right to collateral security of this case.

On the other hand, the Defendant initially caused KRW 90 million. The sales contract of this case states the difference of KRW 650 million and 250 million in the form of delivery on the date of the contract. The Defendant asserted that the so-called “the so-called “the so-called “the so-called contract” was prepared.

Ultimately, the issues of the instant case and the core part of the facts charged are whether the Defendant received KRW 250 million under the name of the cancellation of the second-class collective security right as the victim's test.

3. The judgment of the court below was duly adopted.