All appeals filed by the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.

1. The following circumstances are acknowledged based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the gist of the grounds for appeal: ① the Defendants’ refusal to pay the sales contract (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) to K Entertainment stores located in Gangnam-gu Seoul, Seoul (hereinafter “the instant entertainment stores”) are irrelevant to the victim G, the transferor’s refusal to pay the purchase price for the reason that the Defendant could not be held liable to the victim; ② the Defendants’ refusal to pay the purchase price for the reason that there was no intention to pay the purchase price from the beginning; ② the amount of claims against the victim of the Defendant B, under dispute over the existence and amount of claims against the victim of the instant sales contract, would deduct the amount of claims that may be disputed from the purchase price pursuant to the instant sales contract.

It was intended to oppose the victim’s demand for payment of the purchase price from the time of concluding the instant sales contract to make a claim for such deduction without notifying the victim in advance.

③ In light of the fact that the Defendants established L, a corporation following the conclusion of the instant sales contract (hereinafter “L”) and changed the name of the tenant of the instant entertainment store to L following the conclusion of the instant sales contract appears to have been under the intent of the victimized party to make it difficult for the Defendants to execute the instant entertainment store in preparation for compulsory execution on the instant entertainment store on account of the nonperformance of the obligation to pay the purchase-price, etc., the Defendants acquired the instant entertainment store operating right from the beginning without any intent or ability to pay the gold and balance among the parts of the instant sales contract.

Recognized.

Nevertheless, it is difficult to recognize the criminal intent by fraud to the defendants.

In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts.

2. Determination:

A. The lower court’s determination is due to the following reasons.