The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. According to the statements, etc. by the victim and L, even though the Defendant repaid the victim a loan of KRW 600 million up to December 30, 2013 and did not have the intent or ability to cancel the right to collateral security, the Defendant borrowed KRW 600 million from the victim. Therefore, the Defendant’s fraud and deception is recognized.

B. Therefore, the judgment of the court below which acquitted this part of the facts charged is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles and thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination:

A. First of all, the lower court acknowledged the following facts based on the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court. The lower court recognized the lack of funds to implement the instant project - the Defendant is the F concurrently holding an officetel and studs building (hereinafter “instant officetel”).

2) The project to carry out the new construction project and sell it in lots (hereinafter referred to as “instant project”).

(B) On December 2012, 2012, I received I as the introduction of H on December 12, 2012, and I concluded a sales agency service contract with a company designated by I (K in which I would serve as representative director) (I would receive KRW 450,00,00 (30,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

On the other hand, on December 14, 2012, the victim demanded a security for the above KRW 400 million and the defendant prepared and issued a written confirmation to provide the instant 4 households of the instant officetel as security for KRW 250,000,000, and three households of the instant officetel as security for KRW 150,000,000,000,000.

- The sales agency service contract with the defendant and I did not proceed properly.

L on June 13, 2013, subject to the Defendant’s participation in the sale agency services, etc. of the instant project, other investors such as N, etc.