The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the consistent statement made by the victims of misconception of the facts about the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud), the statement of the victims supporting the aforementioned statement, asset actual report, monetary consumption lending and lending contract, account transaction details, etc., the Defendant is liable for direct investment to J and the obligation borne by the victims for the operation of the above club.

Although it can be recognized that the victims acquired the assets and shares of the above club from the victims, the lower court determined that the facts charged of this case were not guilty by misunderstanding the facts.

B. According to the statement of the victim KK and the statement of N on the fraud, the court below acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case by misunderstanding the facts, even though the Defendant agreed to provide the victim K with 20% equity of the above club, thereby obtaining by deception the name of convenience store and the documents related to the designated tobacco retailer from the victim K.

2. Determination

A. As to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud), the summary of this part of the facts charged and the Defendant’s father H, from June 2009 to October 1, 200, invested and replaced the victim K with an amount equivalent to KRW 5.16 million to the victim K, who is the operator of the “J” located under the ground of the Gangnam-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City I building. On July 23, 2009, the Defendant and the victim K prepared a business agreement and operated the said club together.

H When the interest payment on the above loan was delayed, on April 20, 2010, attached a provisional attachment of the above club's sales claim for the collection of the loan, and the victim K and L, which were under pressure to operate the above club, transferred all the shares of the victims to the defendant, had the defendant prepare a comprehensive contract for acquisition of assets and management rights.

In 2009, the Defendant had neglected to receive the amount equivalent to 25 billion won as compensation for land in the Seocho-gu District in 2009 to the effect that it was reasonable for the Defendant to resume.