The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows: (a) the Defendant had been in excess of 60 million won debt at the time of the instant sales contract, and was difficult to be in an economic situation; and (b) the Defendant received the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of his/her father before making payment of gold, and did not return the said real estate for a considerable period of time after he/she received the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of his/her mother before making payment; and (c) even if the Defendant’s intent to acquire, and

2. Determination

A. The lower court determined that the lower court: (a) knew the motive for the Defendant to purchase the instant real estate as at the time of the instant sales contract, and made efforts to obtain permission to use the instant real estate as an open Ri model; (b) held that K or M did not obtain permission to use the instant real estate as at the time of the instant sales contract; and (c) held that K or M visited the government offices when the Defendant wants to obtain permission to open a new Ri model; and (d) determined the due date to hear that the outstanding payment period may take place until K’s provisional attachment registration for the instant real estate was completed; and (d) the Defendant did not completely dispose of the instant real estate until K completed the provisional attachment registration for the instant real estate; (c) the Defendant was liable for the interest on the secured debt that was established on the instant real estate before the instant sales contract; and (e) prepared each written statement that the Defendant transferred the right to dispose of the instant real estate to the victim after acquiring ownership; and (v) prepared the evidence that the Defendant acquired the Defendant’s property by deception by means of deception from a factory construction in Korea.

Unlike the lack of recognition, this is not sufficient.