The court below rejected the victim's statement, assessed the credibility of the Defendant's statement, and acquitted the Defendant by evaluating the credibility of the victim's statement, since the victim's statement is also consistent with the objective circumstances before and after G's statement and remittance, while the Defendant's statement is hard to believe in light of the circumstances before and after the statement.

Therefore, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is as follows: “The summary of the public prosecution room” as indicated in the judgment below.

B. The lower court’s judgment changed the same content as “Defendant and his defense counsel’s assertion” under Article 2-A of the judgment of the lower court, and the lower court asserted that ① the victim recommended the purchase of land on behalf of the victim without registration after the Defendant purchased all the land necessary for the instant project and paid the price. However, according to the records of the instant case, the Defendant appears to have concluded a sales contract with the seller of each of the instant land on behalf of the victim and delivered the price to the victim. It is difficult to view that the Defendant directly sold each of the instant land to the victim. ② The victim paid KRW 90 million to the Defendant in full.

However, according to the record, the Defendant appears to have received only KRW 87 million from the injured party, and if so, according to the victim’s assertion, it is difficult to obtain payment because he either paid an intermediate payment without a written contract or paid the balance before the payment date. In addition, if the purchase price was fully paid.