The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. In light of the summary of the grounds for appeal, it is difficult to believe that there was money to be settled by the Defendant from the victim when considering the monetary transaction relationship between the Defendant and the victim, and even if there were money to be settled, the amount is much less than KRW 300 million, which is the amount stated in the instant promissory note, so the Defendant’s receipt of promissory note equivalent to KRW 300 million from the victim constitutes fraud, and thus, the lower court acquitted the Defendant, even though it constitutes fraud. In so determining, the

2. The summary of the facts charged in this case states that the Defendant did not intend to pay the deposit money to the victim even if the Defendant received a false promissory note from the victim F with the intent to receive the deposit money. On November 10, 2010, the Seoul Central District Court located in Seocho-gu Seoul Central District Court deposited KRW 80 million upon the establishment of the conciliation with G at Seocho-gu Seoul Central District Court, and it could be distributed to the other creditors in the amount of KRW 365 million to the new shares. As can be seen, in order to receive the deposit, we first speak to the effect that the Defendant would receive the deposit with the promissory note in the amount of KRW 300 million, first of all, in order to receive the deposit. The victim made a false promissory note of KRW 300,000,000,000, and submitted the notarial document, etc. to the court for authentication, and did not pay the deposit money to the victim.

Accordingly, the defendant was given property by deceiving the victim.

3. The lower court determined that the Defendant received the instant deposit around November 10, 2010, and deposited it into a new bank account under the name of the Defendant near two months. If the instant promissory note was received through deception, it is a false promissory note.