The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The prosecutor finds that the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment on the grounds as follows.

The argument is asserted.

A. On January 18, 2016, the lower court, as to the deception related to the cancellation of the registration of the establishment of a right to collateral security, included the claim amount for a voluntary auction (hereinafter “voluntary auction”) conducted on October 26, 2015 at the creditor’s request against the land and building of G (hereinafter “instant Foundation”) by a medical corporation, as the amount of the claim amount of the voluntary auction (hereinafter “voluntary auction”) conducted on August 24, 2015, on the part of the victim I (hereinafter “victim”) deposited KRW 362,801,369, the amount of the compulsory auction claim amount of the instant compulsory auction and the compulsory auction claim amount of KRW 362,801,369 on January 18, 2016.

Report, the defendant deceivings the victim;

Although it was determined that the compulsory auction and voluntary auction of this case are based on separate claims, it is recognized that the defendant deceivings the victim with regard to the cancellation of registration of mortgage creation as stated in the facts charged of this case.

B. At the time of preparing the “written performance of commitments” (hereinafter “each of the instant notes”) around January 18, 2016 regarding further obligations, additional construction expenses, and land use approval, the Defendant, victim, and L, the victim did not know of the existence of KRW 93,709,610, and KRW 678,174,492, and KRW 678,74,492, and KRW 678,74,492, as the victim did not regard the obligation to the Health Insurance Corporation as deemed to have been drafted on September 9, 2015, as it appears that the agreement was made around September 9, 2015.

The fact that there is no objective evidence to see, and the victim and L have no experience in operating a medical corporation foundation, so that the defendant and J may recommend directors who have experience in operating the medical corporation foundation.

Section 8 of the letter of this case does not grant the authority to recommend directors by recognizing the claims of J.