The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts) is as follows: (a) the Defendant was supported by a certified judicial scrivener, who is a legal expert, and thus, could sufficiently be fully aware that the registration of establishment of a right to collateral security, which was promised to the victim was not possible; (b) the Defendant did not have any particular financial resources around the date and time indicated in the facts charged of the instant case; and (c) at least around April 2015, the Defendant acquired the ownership of real estate through a lawsuit and transferred the real estate to a third party without taking such measures.

Nevertheless, the court below acquitted the charged facts of this case, and the judgment of the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. On May 24, 2013, the summary of the facts charged in the instant case, at the D Judicial Scriveners Office located in Seo-gu Daejeon, Seo-gu, Daejeon, the Defendant concluded to the effect that “The Defendant would create a collateral security right equivalent to KRW 200 million with the maximum amount of the claim amount of KRW 200 million in the name of the Party, upon cancellation of the provisional seizure of the real estate in the name of the Party, set up against the victim E, F. F. and 9 parcels and its ground No. 1 and subparagraph (a) or (b) of the same subparagraph (hereinafter “the instant real estate”).

However, when the provisional seizure in the name of the victim was obstructed in the course of trying to recover the ownership of the instant real estate (land portion) that was already owned by the Defendant, the Defendant had no intention or ability to set up a collateral security equivalent to the claim amount of provisional seizure or to compensate the damage therefrom.

Nevertheless, the defendant is the above.