표시ㆍ광고의공정화에관한법률위반
All of the appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal did not have to mislead the general consumers who know of the difference between the “project owner” and the “project owner’s scheduled construction” in the course of advertising for sale in lots by entering the phrase “the scheduled construction site” in the front page of the advertisement for sale in lots.
Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case is erroneous and adversely affected by the judgment.
2. In full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the court below's decision that the defendant was not guilty of the facts charged of this case based on the judgment of evidence as stated in the judgment below is just and acceptable, and there is an error of law by misunderstanding facts as pointed out by the prosecutor in the judgment below, which affected the conclusion
It does not appear.
Therefore, prosecutor's assertion of mistake is without merit.
3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.