The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

With regard to the Defendants’ fraud by mistake of the summary of the grounds for appeal (2016 High Order 2496), the Defendants appears to have made a loan certificate and receipt submitted to the investigation agency after 2011, and Defendant B lent KRW 30 million to Defendant A.

In light of the fact that the Defendants did not specify the due date and did not present the data on the source of the said money, and that the address of Defendant B, not the Defendant A, was written in the principal lawsuit of the transferor of the claim transfer notice, the Defendants can be recognized as if they did not have any contractual relationship.

Defendant

With respect to the issue of the accusation of A, Defendant A and P exchanged Defendant A’s land located in Gyeyang-gu, Yangwon-gun, and Qu building located in the name of Incheon, and Defendant A entered into an exchange contract with Defendant A to succeed to the obligation of KRW 270 million of bank loans of KRW 9,000,000 in Q Q building 9, and KRW 30,000,000,000,000,000. Although P transferred the ownership of the above Q building 9 to X designated by Defendant A, Defendant A did not succeed to the obligation of the above loans and the lease deposit, and the land located in Yangwon-gun was not transferred.

In light of the fact that P transferred ownership of Q Q building 9 and did not receive any consideration, and that if Defendant A paid KRW 240 million to P for the repayment of the above loan, it would directly deliver to the bank or succeed to the obligation of the loan, and there is no reason to pay to P in cash, it is reasonable to deem that Defendant A paid KRW 240 million to P as compensation for damages for failure to perform the above exchange contract. Thus, Defendant A may recognize the fact that Defendant A did not pay P.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which acquitted each of the facts charged in this case on different premise is erroneous and adversely affected the conclusion of the judgment.