The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal was that the Defendant entered into a sales contract on the land (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) with the victim as a representative of M without being delegated the authority to sell the land by M, the owner of H and four lots (hereinafter “instant land”). If the victim knew such fact, the Defendant did not enter into the said sales contract, and the Defendant cannot be deemed to have intended to transfer the ownership of the said land to the victim at the time of the conclusion of the said sales contract. Rather, on October 2010, the Defendant received a loan of the said land as security after the completion of the Defendant’s registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the wife P, and the judgment of the court below acquitted the Defendant, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, is erroneous by misapprehending the facts.

2. The following facts can be acknowledged according to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below and the court below.

On November 7, 2008, the Defendant purchased the instant land from M in the name of M in KRW 187,000,000. From around that time to August 24, 2009, the Defendant paid KRW 154,000,000 out of the purchase price to N, a wife and agent of M, from around that time.

B. The Defendant above A.

When entering into a sales contract under this subsection, M was a delegating person for the division, etc. of the land of this case with the power of attorney and M’s certificate of personal seal impression of the defendant himself, and did not have been delegated by M or N with the authority to sell the land of this case.

C. The Defendant introduced the victim from Q on August 24, 2009. At the time, the Defendant stated that “the Defendant was delegated the right to sell the instant land by M” to the victim.

The proxy and certificate of personal seal impression were shown, and this case was the victim as M's representative on the same day.