The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

1. Although the prosecutor’s evidence submitted by the gist of the grounds for appeal can sufficiently recognize the facts charged, the court below rendered a judgment of innocence against the defendant. In so determining, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles or by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby affecting the conclusion

2. We examine ex officio the reasons for ex officio appeal prior to the determination of the reasons for appeal

In the first instance, the prosecutor applied for changes in the indictment with the following contents: (a) specifying the deception in detail; and (b) correcting the profits to H and I stock company as the person who acquired the profits, not the Defendant, but the person who acquired the profits.

Inasmuch as the subject of the judgment was changed in the trial by permitting the application for changes in the bill of indictment, the judgment of the court is no longer maintained.

However, despite the above reasons for reversal ex officio, the contents of deception between the facts charged in the original judgment and the facts charged changed in the trial are substantially identical, and the reasons for the prosecutor’s appeal are subject to the judgment of this court, and the following are examined first.

3. Determination 1 on the grounds for appeal ) The lower court acknowledged facts based on the evidence adopted by the lower court based on its reasoning, and determined that it was insufficient to recognize that the Defendant had an intentional intent to deceive the victim in light of the following circumstances.

① The Defendant is in the position of the purchaser under the instant sales contract and actually acquired K and prepared the purchase price through transactions with N. As such, insofar as the Defendant conspireds with M to commit the crime of fraud, and is not investigated and prosecuted, there is the criminal intent of defraudation by the Defendant.

For the purpose of doing so, M did not have the intent or ability to procure the purchase price to the Defendant, and the Defendant knowingly concluded the instant sales contract and the instant collateral security prior to being aware of such circumstances.