The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor of the gist of the grounds for appeal, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the facts charged of this case on a different premise, even though it is recognized that the Defendants had deceiving the victim as stated in the facts charged of this case, and the Defendants had no intention or ability to submit the contract performance guarantee certificate and the defect performance guarantee certificate without confirming whether it is possible to change the purpose of use before the conclusion of the construction contract

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged in this case is the representative director of Mapo-gu Seoul building and E company with subparagraph 4, and Defendant B is an employee of Defendant E company.

On November 2017, the Defendants sent to the Victim F a document file stating “PLN - a statutory review and consultation department - a parking lot: the previous 68 units: Around December 8, 2017, the Defendants drafted a construction contract at the I Triang Office of Seocho-gu Seoul Building H, and the victim may change the use to a religious facility within 14 days from the ground parking lot without additional proof as to the change to a neighboring facility to a religious facility.” The Seocho-gu Office also recognized the change of use to a religious facility under paragraph (5) of the said construction contract. After concluding the contract, the Defendants agreed to the effect that “PLN - a legal review and consultation department - a parking lot: the existing 68 units; and the existing 50 million units of the G building H, Seoul, as well as the contract performance guarantee for KRW 50,000,00,” and submitted the defective securities to the Party A within three days.

In fact, the defendants did not know about the change of purpose of use in Seocho-gu Office, and did not change neighboring facilities to religious facilities without additional proof, so even if they concluded a contract, they did not have the intention or ability to carry out the construction work.