The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor, according to the summary of the grounds for appeal (the fact-finding) and the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor, the intent of deception and deception can be fully recognized.

2. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant operates the planning real estate company with the trade name of Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C.

Around July 2012, the Defendant, at the foregoing D office, concluded that “If the Defendant purchases F real estate of Gyeonggi-gun, he/she would be able to view that the surrounding areas would have a big profit from the estimated development. When paying down payment and intermediate payment, he/she would transfer the registration after cancelling the collateral security established on the said real estate. It would be time for the Defendant to borrow KRW 20,000,000 as collateral and pay the remainder.”

In addition, the defendant made a false statement to E at the same place on August of the same year.

However, at the time, the Defendant was unable to pay the monthly salary of the employees due to the shortage of planning real estate operation funds, so there was no intention or ability to cancel the collateral security or transfer ownership to the victim even if he received the down payment and the intermediate payment.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, as above, deceiving E and its affiliated therewith for the same year as the purchase price from E.

7. From the time of 18.18. to October 29 of the same year, 72,529,500 won was delivered in total over 15 times as shown in the list of crimes in attached Form 1 of the judgment below, from that time, from around 4 million won to that time.

3. In light of the circumstances stated in its holding, the lower court determined that the Defendant was not guilty on the grounds that there was no evidence to acknowledge otherwise, even though the Defendant’s payment of intermediate payment was canceled upon the Defendant’s payment of intermediate payment, and the Defendant could not be deemed to have made a transfer registration even though E had taken the part payment by deceiving E to cancel the mortgage and made the transfer registration, and the Defendant could not be deemed to have made a transfer registration.

The present evidence of this case.