The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds of appeal is as follows: (a) the Defendants used the amount of KRW 180 million out of the amount loaned as collateral to the land located in the Namyang-si, Namyang-si (hereinafter “instant land”); (b) the Defendants did not pay KRW 4 million out of the down payment of KRW 34 million to the Plaintiff Company I (hereinafter “I”); and (c) the Defendants offered as collateral with the instant land at the time of receiving a loan from the corporate bond manager H was non-valueless; (d) the Defendants’ intent to commit the crime of defraud-gu, which was sufficiently recognized, the lower court acquitted the Defendants of the instant facts charged, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is the operator of D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”), and Defendant B as the manager of D Co., Ltd., and as the manager of D Co., Ltd., the Defendants concluded a construction contract with the victim E (the age of 38) who intends to borrow the land owned by the Defendants, making a false representation as to the credit construction work against the victim E (the age of 38) who intends to do so, and subsequently,

Accordingly, on November 21, 2012, Defendant B proposed that Defendant B may perform the construction work of credit sufficient to obtain D funds from the victim at the remote location around November 21, 2012. Defendant A also concluded a construction contract between the victim and the victim on November 26, 2012 and January 30, 2013, with the construction cost of KRW 450 million from November 26, 2012, and Defendant B provided the instant land owned by the victim who is scheduled to perform the construction work against the victim as collateral, and that Defendant B would obtain a loan from the bond company and use it as the construction fund from the victim.