The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant, despite the finding of guilty of the facts charged in this case, is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged of this case is as follows: “When the Defendant became aware of the existence of the form of the sales contract E around June 2007, the Defendant conspired to borrow money by deceiving the victim F by using it; Defendant A received two copies of the apartment sales contract from E at the above temporary border and the unclaimed hotel coffee store located in Gyeonggi-si-si, and transferred it to Defendant B. Defendant B around June 15, 2007. Accordingly, Defendant B delivered one copy of the above contract to the victim F at the H restaurant located in Chungcheongnam-si, Chungcheongnam-gu, Chungcheongnam-si, Chungcheongnam-si, Chungcheongnam-si, and delivered one copy of the above contract to the victim F, “(20 million won to include the money to comply with the construction work)” and the principal will be repaid after two months; and

However, the above sales contract was made for the purpose of selling the apartment or selling it. However, the purchaser and the contracting date were not written, and there was no property value as it was not entered in the purchase price receipt, and even if the Defendants borrowed the above money from the victim because they were in a construction site that they run so that they did not seek any construction material costs, and there was no economic and insufficient means, such as receiving any financial pressure, etc. Nevertheless, the Defendants conspired with the victims by deceiving the victims by the above method, and acquired the sum of KRW 20 million from the victim’s account on June 15, 2007 to the Defendant B’s account.

B. The lower court’s judgment.