The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the statements of D and V, etc. with credibility of the grounds for appeal, even though it can be sufficiently recognized that the defendant actively participated in the act of breach of trust of D and committed the crime of this case, the judgment of the court below which acquitted this part of the facts charged without recognizing it, is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles or erroneous in the misapprehension

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. As for the type of breach of trust requiring the existence of a party to the relevant legal doctrine, the other party to the breach of trust is basically an independent transaction with an interest separate from the other party to the act of breach of trust and is basically an independent transaction on the opposite part. In light of the fact that the other party to the breach of trust actively participates in the act of breach of trust by inducing the other party to commit the act of breach of trust or participating in the entire process of such act of breach of trust, and thus the contract with the executor becomes null and void as it constitutes an anti-social juristic act, the other party may be the principal of the breach of trust or the joint principal of the act of breach of trust, apart from the fact that the degree of involvement does not reach the level of involvement, in a case where social reasonableness is reasonable from the point of view

Even if the degree of crime is not illegal, it is reasonable to view that there is no illegality.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Do4915 Decided October 28, 2005). B.

Facts of recognition

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below, the following facts can be acknowledged.

1) D along with E, 2 lots, including 27,976 square meters of H, forest land in Hasung-si from F and G on February 22, 2002 (hereinafter “instant land”).

) A sales contract to purchase the purchase price of KRW 582 million (However, E concluded a sales contract under the name of J lending the name of J.

The above sales contract is called “the first sales contract of this case”.