The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (fact-finding) was that the Defendant had the authority to sell a store in relation to the K K K if both Korea and the wholesale market and the slaughterhouse construction project (hereinafter “the instant project”), and the Defendant was entitled to purchase L, M, N, and O land at two weeks and to transfer the land of 500 square meters to the victim C and D respectively, so there was no intention to commit the crime of defraudation by the Defendant.

2. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the judgment of the court below and the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the defendant did not have the right to sell the fixed stop store to the victims as shown in the judgment of the court below, and it can be sufficiently recognized that the defendant acquired money by deceiving the victims even though the victims did not have any intent or ability to complete the registration of ownership transfer or to raise investment profits, and the defendant also has the intent to acquire money by deceiving them.

① On March 29, 2004, the two weeks Mayor, based on the proposal of P Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “P”), determined the urban planning facilities to plan K workers in both cities as the mayor, slaughterhouse, and road. On April 2, 2007, the implementation plan was approved on April 2, 2007. The Defendant did not have been delegated the authority to sell the refined stores in relation to the instant project from P.

② The Defendant asserted that the Defendant was delegated with the authority to sell the Pos to sell the Pos to the Pos to the Pos to the Pos to the Pos to the Pos to the Pos to the Pos to the transfer of the Pos to the Pos to the Pos to the Pos to the Pos to the Pos to the Pos to the Pos to the Pos to the Pos to the Pos to the Pos to the Pos to the Pos to the Pos to the Pos to the Pos to the Pos to the