The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The decision of the court below which acquitted the defendant, notwithstanding the fact that the defendant had an intention to acquire the above money by deceit considering the financial situation of the defendant when the defendant received the deposit for the lease deposit of the apartment of this case from the victim.

2. Determination

A. On July 12, 2011, when the Defendant entered into a lease contract with the victim for lease of KRW 200 million with respect to the apartment of this case, the Defendant: (a) obtained a loan as security; and (b) obtained a loan to sell the apartment of this case as principal below the amount equivalent to 673,90,000 won; (c) thus, the Defendant could recover the lease deposit clearly; (d) at the time, the Defendant did not have any particular property value; (e) was able to settle the payment liability of the apartment of this case with the loans borrowed from the construction of the Bank of Korea, the Gwangjin-gu Saemaul Bank, and the construction of the Civil Procedure Act and the deposit money; and (e) thereafter, (e) had no intention or ability to refund the lease deposit.

The Defendant, as such, by deceiving the victim, received KRW 20,000,000 from the victim for the same day as the down payment, and received KRW 180,000,000 as the remainder on September 18, 201.

B. The judgment of the court below is reasonable to view that the defendant had a criminal intent to acquire the above money by taking into account the defendant's financial history at the time when he was delivered a total sum of KRW 200,000,000 from the victim, even though the defendant did not deceiving the victim of the terms and conditions of sale or loan of the apartment of this case, and the defendant did not delay interest on the loan due to the financial situation of the defendant and changes in the surrounding environment. In light of the ordinary lease transaction circumstances, the victim was also subject to deception.