The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal stated that the defendant would repay the victim within one month, and according to the circumstances such as the fact that the defendant's business was not operated normally at the time of the time, due to the failure of the defendant's business, and the bank interest rate of KRW 13 million per month, the real estate owned by the defendant was sold at the time of the auction within the nearest time, and the real estate owned by the defendant was lost its ownership due to the auction, the civil lawsuit claiming that I is the vehicle against the defendant should reach the appellate court, and the victim was paid only after the judgment of the court below was rendered, the defendant did not have an intention or ability to repay the damage amount of KRW 30 million within the month of the victim at the time

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant not guilty of the facts charged in the instant case. In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

2. According to the facts that the Defendant paid KRW 300 million to F on December 1, 2010 and demanded a return after one year, the lower court appears to have determined that the Defendant at the time of the instant case could receive a refund of KRW 300 million to F. The Defendant leased the building to I, but the Defendant did not pay the rent of KRW 13,000,000 on May 25, 201, filed a civil lawsuit claiming the payment of rent of KRW 13,000,000,000,000,000 won. However, according to the fact that the Defendant at the time of the instant case was deemed to have a claim against F, the Defendant had suffered a financial shortage at the time of the instant case.

Even if the real estate owned by the Defendant was disposed of by auction within the nearest time, there is no reasonable doubt as to the facts charged in this case that the Defendant acquired 30 million won by deceiving the victim with the intent to commit a crime by deception.