The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the summary of the grounds for appeal, according to the receipt on March 26, 2015, the statement of G, etc. in the name of the defendant, the fact that the defendant deceivings the victim company to acquire 100 million won as expenses for resettlement and transplantation of lost trees can be acknowledged.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that acquitted the defendant is erroneous in the misconception of facts.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances recognized based on the evidence duly adopted and examined, the lower court, based on the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, by deceiving the victim company, acquired money as expenses for relocating lessee and expenses for transplanting lost trees by deceiving the victim company.

The court rendered a verdict of innocence on the grounds that there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

① M (the representative of the victim company) was employed on or around May 2015 by the court of the court below, and was not at the time of the instant real estate sales contract.

Inasmuch as Ma’s investigative agency and court statements on the name of KRW 100 million are written, regardless of who requested KRW 100 million at any time, they are aware that they were paid as expenses for relocation, and whether they are included in the purpose of compensation for lost trees, and thus, they are not admissible as evidence or are less reliable by being subject to circumstantial evidence.

② At the time of the instant case, I, the representative director of the victim company, was “I” in the court of original instance, and only G, connected with the Defendant, and did not communicate with the Defendant separately.

The other enterprisers did not know about the defendant's land.

They have led to their choice.

N demanded KRW 100 million from N.

In addition to the purchase price, it is memoryed that there is a difference in the name of lost numbers and resettlement expenses.

On March 26, 2015, the N receipt was prepared, and the Defendant stated that he was a private person.

However, N in charge of the purchase of the instant real estate on behalf of the victim company is at the court below.