The judgment of the court below which judged otherwise and found the Defendant not guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts.

2. The summary of the “act of deception” stated in the facts charged in the instant case is as follows: (a) although the Defendant did not have the intent or ability to pay the acquisition price of a restaurant among the “E”, the Defendant’s husband entered into a contract with the victim to take over the restaurant at KRW 230 million among the above “E” with the victim; and (b) the Defendant entered into a sales contract with the victim’s wife H on the part of the victim’s wife according to the terms and conditions of the contract.

First, the Defendant’s act of delivering an underwriting contract from F to F and transferring C land pursuant to the terms and conditions of the contract can be deemed as an act of performing the said underwriting contract, and the act itself does not constitute a deception against the victim.

In regard to this, the prosecutor asserts that the defendant was aware of the above underwriting contract in advance, accepted the legal effect of the above underwriting contract, or was directly related to the above underwriting contract in the statement of the reasons for appeal. However, the prosecutor's above assertion is based on the premise that the defendant and the F conspired to execute the above underwriting contract under the preceding condition that the above underwriting contract constitutes deception.

However, it is recognized that the court, in collusion with other persons, committed the same crime.