The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the gist of the grounds for appeal, the defendant concluded a "AD Sales Complex Liability Management Contract" with the victim (hereinafter "the contract of this case") and did not have the intent or ability to operate the store normally, the defendant would not interfere with the management of the victim's store by paying the deposit to G, which is the former contractor, even though he did not have the intent or ability to make the victim operate the store normally.

Although it is sufficiently recognized that the defendant acquired the deposit by deception, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant as to the facts charged of this case is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts or by misunderstanding the legal principles, which affected

2. Determination

A. On May 16, 2012, the summary of the facts charged was sentenced to ten months of imprisonment with prison labor for escape from compulsory execution in the Sungnam branch of Suwon branch of Suwon branch of the Defendant, and the judgment became final and conclusive on July 20, 2012.

The Defendant: (a) is a person who actually operates Company D, a person who engages in the business of processing and selling fishery products, and (b) leased part of the first floor of the department store underground from the F department store located in Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and operated the food sales store in Company D (Change to D in the name of a bank of accounts around April 201). On January 24, 201, the Defendant entered into a sublease contract with G with respect to the said store and received KRW 120 million as a deposit money from G.

In that sense, the Defendant terminated the sub-lease contract with G around May 18, 201, and entered into a contract with the victim J as a new lessee on the same day. At the time of the above contract, the Defendant would not have any problem in the operation of the store by returning the deposit deposit, etc. to G, who is the previous borrower, in receipt of the deposit from the victim.

Around that time, G was created with the content that “if a security deposit is returned, he/she does not take an act that causes damage to the operation of the store of the victim.”