The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the summary of the grounds for appeal, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the ground that the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the following grounds: (a) by deceiving the victim that “if the name of the person with the authority to permit the establishment of a factory is changed to the same industry company (hereinafter “the same industry”), the victim would pay an intermediate payment of KRW 300 million to be received from the same industry; and (b) the victim received a letter of approval for the establishment of a factory, a post

2. On August 20, 2007, the Defendant purchased “the land from Pyeongtaek-si J” from D, E, F, G, H, and I (hereinafter “branch owners”) (hereinafter “the first sale contract”), around October 31, 2007, sold the said forest to the victim C (hereinafter “the second sale contract”), and received KRW 300 million from the victim as the down payment on the same day.

After that, on March 26, 2008, the victim obtained the approval of the establishment of a new factory from the head of office among the head of office in Pyeongtaek-si. The defendant and the victim sold the said forest to a third party at the time of cancelling the second sales contract around June 18, 2008, but the victim provided a third party to purchase the said forest, with documents necessary for changing the name of the person who is authorized to permit the establishment of a new factory, and agreed to settle down the down payment of KRW 300 million received from the victim.

Therefore, around June 19, 2008, the Defendant sold the forest above to the same industry (hereinafter “third sale contract”), and received 300 million won of the down payment from the same industry. After doing so, the Defendant wanted to enter into a direct sale contract with the prop on the ground that the same industry may become an issue of double sale. On June 27, 2008, the said prop and the same industry entered into a direct sale contract with the prop and the same industry (hereinafter “fourth sale contract”), the Defendant and the same industry revoked the third sale contract with the said prop and the same industry, and the Defendant are against the said prop.