All appeals filed by the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.

In full view of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor and all the circumstances indicated in the record, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendants of the facts charged in this case, despite the fact that the Defendants conspired to obtain money from the victims under the pretext of borrowing money, is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts.

Judgment

Defendant

The lower court determined as to B. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, i.e., ① Defendant B did not cancel the provisional attachment of “347 square meters in Seo-gu, Daejeon” and “142 square meters in Seo-gu, Daejeon” (hereinafter “instant real estate”) on the ground that each of the above real estate was not registered until March 15, 2014, which was the time when the provisional attachment registration was promised to be cancelled, the F and the secured amount of the right to collateral should be considered as the secured claim (F asserted that KRW 60 million should be considered as the secured claim. Defendant B asserted that the secured claim should be deemed as the secured claim amount. In light of the circumstance that Defendant B did not have been aware that there was a possibility that F would not cancel the provisional attachment on the wind that had been applied for voluntary auction between the dispute and the F’s transfer of the principal amount to Defendant B and the F’s transfer of shares to KRW 30 million in consideration of the fact that Defendant B and F’s transfer of shares could not be seen as the secured claim.