All of the appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

1. According to the statement by N manager of the summary of the grounds for appeal, insofar as the Defendants did not purchase the land by 100%, it was difficult to obtain a project financing loan (hereinafter “PF loan”), and there was no other way for the Defendants to raise funds necessary for purchasing the land.

In such a situation, the lower court acquitted the victim of the facts charged in this case even though it is obvious that the victim made it possible to sell them in lots for three months after the lapse of the three months.

2. Determination whether a certain act constitutes a deception that causes mistake to others, and whether there exists a causal relationship between such deception and property disposal should be determined generally and objectively by taking into account the circumstances of the transaction, the other party’s knowledge, character, experience, occupation, and other specific circumstances at the time of the act.

Therefore, in a case where the victim's property disposal act or the defendant's act is closely related to the failure or performance of any business that the defendant plans, it cannot be determined whether the deception or causation is recognized on the basis of the defendant's financial power or credit status.

The relationship between the victim and the defendant, the degree of victim's awareness and involvement in the business, the detailed background of the victim's disposal of property in relation to the business, the success possibility of the business concerned, the experience and occupation of the victim, etc. shall be determined generally and objectively.

(see Supreme Court Decision 201Do8829, Oct. 13, 2011). The lower court determined that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor on the same ground as the facts charged alone is difficult to recognize deception, such as that indicated in the facts charged.

In light of the circumstances cited by the lower court, and the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, it is deemed that the Defendants deceptioned the victim.