The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor (misunderstanding of the facts), the fact that the Defendant, despite having no intent to pay money to the victim, was set up a collateral security right (the “mortgage” in the name of J, a woman living together with the Defendant, hereinafter referred to as the “mortgage”) on November 17, 201, in two parcels of forest land and land owned by the victim, other than Gyang-gun, South and North Korea, and the victim owned on November 17, 201.

2. Determination

A. The lower court determined as follows based on the evidence duly adopted and examined.

① Even after the establishment of the instant right to collateral security, the Defendant made efforts to maintain joint business with the victim; ② the Defendant made a statement in return for the instant right to collateral security; ② the Defendant made a statement that corresponds to the change of the Defendant in the court below to the extent that it would not have known such circumstances; ④ the Defendant made a statement that corresponds to the change of the Defendant in return for the instant right to collateral security; ② the Defendant acquired other real estate from November 3, 201 to January 18, 201 in return for the instant right to collateral security, or that M would have received compensation on September 201, the victim also understood; ③ M would have received compensation around September 201, which is the transfer of the instant right to collateral security; ③ purchased other real estate with the money and completed the registration from November 3, 2011 to January 18, 2012. In light of the fact that there was no objective dispute over the amount of the instant right to collateral security at the time when M acquired new real estate from the Defendant.