Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. With respect to the fraud of the victim L, as described in the judgment below at the time of the appeal, the purport that Defendant A may be granted the right to occupy a commercial building while selling the plastic house to L as described in the judgment below. However, the 10 greenhouse house of this case was illegally installed in the city maintenance, without permission from the competent authorities, and the E.I.D. was granted the right to occupy a commercial building on February 26, 2007 (the date of public inspection for designation of an urban development zone) to those who owned or leased the farmland before the relocation date, so it was objectively apparent that L could not be granted the right to occupy a commercial building even if purchasing ten plastic houses, because Defendant A was punished for a similar case before the victims related to real estate investment, and Defendant B also knew of the above fact that Q28 square meters of this case’s plastic house was not subject to punishment prior to the acquisition date, and in light of the fact that Q280 square meters of this case’s plastic house was not subject to punishment for the purchase of the land of this case.