The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the court below found the defendant not guilty of this part of the facts charged, although the defendant's statement to the effect that the defendant did not have an obligation to return the investment amount to R was sufficiently recognized. The court below erred in the misapprehension of facts.

B. The sentence that the court below rendered unfair sentencing (five million won in penalty) is too unhued and unfair.

2. Determination

A. Although the court below rendered a judgment to confirm that the Defendant’s obligation to the Plaintiff’s R does not exceed KRW 501,231,791 in relation to the instant monetary transaction as stated in the judgment below, in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, i.e., the evidence and the statement of the witness R, i.e., Seoul High Court Decision 2014Na 2014 Na 2002462, as stated in the original judgment, and the Defendant’s obligation to the Defendant’s R does not exceed KRW 501,79,00, it is acknowledged that R does not exist. Since the above judgment was rendered, the government district court 2014 Gohap’s 3129 cases and the contents asserted in this court, and the judgment to dismiss the Defendant’s claim against the Defendant was accepted, and the statement of the amount and composition of the Defendant’s obligation to the Defendant under this case’s monetary transaction was modified to 20 years prior to the Seoul High Court’s reply.