The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds of appeal is that the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant on the ground that there is no evidence to support the fact that the defendant deceivings E on the ground that the defendant, while borrowing KRW 145 million from E, had no collateral value at the time of the above loan or had a very insufficient collateral value at the loan money, which is the only security provided by the defendant, and the defendant knew of this right to sell the above house to E, and the defendant knowingly provided it as a security, and thus, there is no other error of law by mistake of facts.

2. Determination

A. On October 2008, the Defendant made a false statement to the effect that, at the F Office of the Victim E’s Operation in Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, the Defendant provided the victim with the right to sell an I Apartment apartment constructed in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant apartment”) (hereinafter “instant right to sell an apartment unit”) as security and would bring about the right to sell the apartment unit if he/she could not repay any borrowed money if he/she borrowed money to the victim.

However, even if the Defendant borrowed money from the victim, the Defendant did not have the ability to repay the money, and the Defendant did not actually perform construction according to the construction contract with G, and the right to sell the instant land was not effective due to the payment of the purchase price. As such, the Defendant did not have the right to provide the right to sell the instant land as collateral to the victim, and the Defendant could not actually purchase the apartment through the right to sell the instant land, and thus, it was practically

Around October 8, 2008, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim and deceiving the victim, is KRW 145 million at a restaurant where the name near the above F office cannot be known.