The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the Reasons for Appeal argues that the defendant's offering of the instant real estate as collateral refers to lending KRW 200 million to the F and delivery of registration documents concerning the instant real estate to the defendant, and that the defendant has already borrowed large amounts of money from F and there seems to be no reason to lend F, and that the defendant has borrowed money from F for each real estate offered as collateral, and that the defendant has borrowed money from F for each real estate offered as collateral. In light of the above, the charges of this case are sufficiently recognized in light of the fact that the defendant has not been notified to E even after offering the instant real estate as collateral, and the defendant has not been notified to F of this fact.

Nevertheless, since the court below acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged in this case, it erred by misapprehending the facts.

2. In light of the evidence submitted by the judgment prosecutor and the reasons for appeal, etc. by the prosecutor, there is doubt that the defendant provided the instant real estate owned by the E as collateral to F and borrowed money from F, but did not pay the money to E and acquired it by fraud.

However, considering the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below in light of the records of this case, it is difficult to view that the facts and circumstances acknowledged by the court below were proven to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is just in finding the Defendant not guilty of the facts charged in this case, and it is erroneous in finding facts.