사기
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles) is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as follows.
A. In relation to the primary facts charged, according to the victim’s statement, the Defendants, based on the fact that those aged 77 years old have much experience in the sale of real estate, led to fixed profits if they were to enter into a contract with them, deceiving the victim as if they were guaranteed the old age, without sufficiently explaining the terms of the contract to the victim, and concluded the contract without sufficiently explaining the terms of the contract to the victim, and concluded the second contract with the second one.
full recognition may be accepted.
B. As to the ancillary charge, the Defendants sufficiently discovered the circumstances that the existing occupant at the time of the sale in the instant case refused to withdraw and that the sale in the instant case did not proceed as soon as possible, and that the sales in the instant case was paid due to the suspension of return.
As such, the victim did not have a duty to notify the victim of this.
2. In full view of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to acknowledge the guilty of the facts charged of this case, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
Therefore, the conclusion of the court below that acquitted the charged facts of this case is correct and there is an error of law by misunderstanding facts or misunderstanding legal principles as argued by the prosecutor.
subsection (b) of this section.
The prosecutor's assertion is without merit.
A. The facts charged of the instant case are all the employees of the J, Co., Ltd., which are the employees of the Defendants engaged in the sale of lots, and the five-story commercial buildings among the I building that F delegated by the Defendants to the sale of lots (hereinafter “instant commercial buildings”) were not in compliance with the eviction and the sale of lots is not carried out as soon as the existing occupants at the time of the instant case did not immediately lead to the sale of lots.