The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows: (a) the Defendant, among the facts charged in the instant case, has already been in excess of his/her obligation at the time of the transaction of goods with the victim company; (b) the Defendant actively induced the victim company to settle the price of goods in cash paid as cable sales if the promissory note is not settled; (c) the promissory note issued by the Defendant at the time is difficult to be deemed as a normal bill, such as the likelihood of default; and (d) the Defendant used the cable sales price for the repayment of his/her obligation, taking into account

In addition, with respect to the taking of goods through the delivery of the payment guarantee letter among the charges of this case, the payment guarantee letter of this case was written in the name of the representative director of the victim company, the defendant was issued with the payment guarantee letter of this case from Seoul Guarantee Capital, who is the owner of the land as collateral on the letter of guarantee, and the payment guarantee letter of this case was issued with only KRW 7,50,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 won, which was already provided as collateral on the letter of guarantee, is contrary to the empirical rule. The payment guarantee letter of this case cannot be viewed as a normal guarantee with the purport that the above guarantee company pays the above 7,500,000 won, instead of paying the fee to the above guarantee company, it cannot be viewed as paying the defendant's debt amount to the actual operator, and the defendant issued the payment guarantee letter of this case from the above guarantee company as the principal debtor, considering the relationship between the defendant and K, and the related parties's statements about the issuance of the payment guarantee letter of this case.

Moreover, the Defendant is the victim’s goods.