The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant, with the consent of K, is entitled to receive money from K, the actual owner of the victim company, the Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant set up a mortgage and borrows money with the consent of K is contrary to the empirical rule. On the other hand, E, the actual operator of the victim company at the time of the victim company, has consistently stated the reasons and circumstances for setting up a mortgage, such as the facts charged, as stated in the facts charged, with respect to the apartment of this case, and the statement of K also conforms to the statement of E.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which rejected the credibility of the E-K statement and acquitted the defendant is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. On September 2012, the Defendant made a false statement in the facts charged of the instant case to the representative director E of the injured party D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “victim Co., Ltd.”) at the C office located in Yasan-si (hereinafter “victim Co., Ltd.”) stating, “If the Plaintiff offered the C Apartment Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “victim Co., Ltd.”) as security, he/she will use the apartment as security from the bank or its branch, pay the purchase price after the completion of the construction.”

However, even if the defendant was provided with C apartment as collateral from E, he did not have the intention or ability to purchase the apartment.

As above, the Defendant, by deceiving E, received the documents related to the creation of the right to collateral security against C Apartment F, which is approximately KRW 140 million at the market price of the victim company owned by E, on September 13, 2012, with respect to the above apartment on September 13, 2012, the Defendant established the right to collateral security with respect to the said apartment as the maximum debt amount of KRW 60 million, G, and H, and borrowed KRW 50 million from H, and on January 9, 2013, borrowed KRW 70 million with respect to the above apartment as the maximum debt amount of KRW 70 million, the debtor, the Defendant, and the mortgagee of the right to collateral security, and KRW 50 million from J. 50 million.