The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor of the gist of the grounds for appeal, even if the defendant was found to have obtained a total of 16,655 million won by deceiving the victim, the court below found the defendant not guilty on the ground that the victim and I's statement are not reliable, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles.

2. Determination

A. On June 30, 2007, the Defendant: (a) stated that “The Defendant purchased an apartment house in Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu, Seoul and the balance is urgently needed; and (b) would pay back the money borrowed from the apartment.” However, the Defendant did not have purchased an apartment house in Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu; and (c) the Defendant did not have any intent or ability to pay the money even if he borrowed money from the victim. The Defendant was informed of the victim and was given a delivery of KRW 70 million from Seocheon-gu, Incheon. (b) On September 10, 2007, the Defendant purchased an apartment house in Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu, Incheon, from the corporate bank in Seocheon-gu, Incheon, to the victim on September 10, 2007.”

However, the defendant did not purchase a detached house in Ansan-si, and even if he borrowed money from the victim, he did not have the intention or ability to repay it.

The Defendant, as such, by deceiving the victim, received 12 million won from the victim, who was in his seat.

3. On Oct. 1, 2007, the Defendant stated that “The 4th floor of the commercial building located in Yongsan-gu, Yongsan-gu, Incheon, Incheon, E apartment 3 Dong 402, the Defendant purchased the 4th floor of the commercial building located in Yongsan-gu, Seoul, and the down payment is insufficient, and borrowed money would be repaid by selling real estate.”

However, the facts are the defendant's money from the victim.