A. The lower court was proceeding as a part of the citizen participatory trial. However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts to mislead jurors into fact, such as providing the jury with answers instead of Defendant or materials not presented on the preparation date in the process of examination of witness or examination of Defendant.

However, there is an error of law that the court below acquitted the jury based on such erroneous judgment.

B. A written agreement between the Defendant and the damaged party agreed to “the change of the form and quality, etc., and access road work” to the effect that the Defendant would make a public official’s request to change the form and quality so that the Defendant may construct the instant land that falls under the forest conservation zone.

Denating and receiving money.

Since the victim purchased the instant land, it was thought that the victim would build a house, and the talking about the mushroom growing will have occurred after the Defendant received the said money, it is merely that it was promoted after the Defendant received the said money, and is not included in the “change of the quality of a punishment, etc.” under the Agreement.

However, there is no work or service performed by the defendant in relation to the agreement of this case.

In light of these various circumstances, even if the facts charged of this case by deceiving the victim and deceiving the victim are sufficiently recognized, the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and thereby acquitted the defendant.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant, on February 2, 2009, called the victim by telephone, so that the Defendant can change the form and quality of the house by leaving the phone to the victim. “The D land that was purchased by the party is currently a forest conservation zone, and as the inside is a beer for viewing, this would lead to changing the form and quality of the house.

“.......”

However, even if the defendant receives money from the injured party, he did not have any intention or ability to change the form and quality of the victim's land so that housing construction can be made.

Defendant 2.