The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the summary of the grounds of appeal submitted by the prosecutor, the court below acquitted the Defendants of each of the facts charged in this case on the following grounds: (a) the Defendants, at the time when they received the registration of ownership transfer for the land B/F (hereinafter “instant land”) owned by the victim, and (b) it was sufficiently recognized that the Defendants did not have the ability or intent to repay the balance of the said land and the borrowed money at the time of borrowing KRW 7 million from the victim.

2. The lower court determined as follows based on the evidence duly adopted and examined: (a) the ownership of the instant land still belongs to Defendant A, and the Defendants did not otherwise dispose of the said land except for the loan of KRW 7 million as collateral; and (b) Defendant A, around January 9, 2017, on the date of payment to the victim on June 31, 2017 (which appears to be a clerical error in the date of payment, June 30, 2017), prepared and delivered a promissory note No. 30 million won with the consent of compulsory execution; (c) the victim was able to enforce compulsory execution on the Defendant’s property, including the instant land, at any time after the lapse of June 30, 2017; (d) the Defendants were able to obtain a total of KRW 40 million and KRW 7 million with the loan of KRW 70 million from the Plaintiff at the time of borrowing the instant land as collateral; and (e) the loan and the loan of KRW 70 million were ultimately paid to the Defendants at the time of the loan and the instant land as collateral.