The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

The summary of the facts charged is that on March 26, 2013, the Defendant, from the deceased D (Death on March 30, 2013, hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”), 6/10 shares of the Gangnam-gu Seoul E site and building (hereinafter referred to as “the instant real estate”), and the mother of the Defendant, from the deceased on the same day, share of 4/10 of the instant real estate by donation and completed the registration of transfer of ownership.

The Defendant, the victim G, who was the omission of the Defendant, raised an objection against the above donation, and the Defendant, the victim, and the F, on April 12, 2013, “Agreement on Transfer, etc. of Real Estate Shares” (hereinafter “Agreement on the Penalty for Event of Distribution”).

The main contents of this case have been notarized, and the amount equivalent to 1/3 of the distributed assets shall be donated to the victim by selling the real estate at an appropriate time, and prior to sale, the real estate in this case shall not be disposed of, such as the creation of a collateral security, and the party who violated this shall pay one billion won to the other party as penalty.

“...”

F on July 15, 2015, in violation of the above agreement, the F set up a mortgage of the maximum amount of KRW 2776 million on the instant real estate and borrowed KRW 230 million from the Bank of Korea.

On September 19, 2015, in order to raise an objection with the knowledge of the establishment of the above right to collateral security and to resolve the problem, the victim demanded that the Defendant “in the event of the death of the Defendant, prepare a will stating that he/she donated property to the two his/her fathers, and set up the right to collateral security equivalent to one billion won on the instant real estate” as a solution to the establishment of the above right to collateral security.

The Defendant promised to give the victim the above requirement, and “The mother would have suffered severe pain due to a penalty of 1 billion won as stipulated in the distribution penalty agreement of this case, and have the same effect.” The Defendant would first nullify the distribution penalty agreement of this case.