The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

The judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant of the facts charged of this case, even though the defendant's criminal intent is recognized in light of the victim's statement and the fact that the defendant did not pay the construction cost as revealed in the process of transaction.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is that the Defendant, at the Defendant’s office located in the above B, to newly construct a telecom on two lots, such as the Defendant’s wife Seongbuk-gun B and C, and on November 16, 2016, concluded a contract with the Defendant to “the total construction cost of KRW 1,396,950,00, and the construction period of KRW 21,201 from November 30, 2016 to December 21, 2017, the advance payment of KRW 56,000,000,000,000 from March 31, 2017, through loans from a financial institution.”

After that, even if the victim started construction of her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her she

However, even if the defendant receives a loan from a financial institution as collateral with a her completed her completion, it was expected that the loan will be repaid to the existing financial institution loan, the defendant would make most of the expenses related to the civil works that he/she directly entrusted, and even if the her completion is sold, it would not reach the value of the payment of the construction cost to the victim due to the obligations arising from the establishment of the existing right to collateral security.