The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the part of the judgment below not guilty of the fact-misunderstanding, according to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the defendant was a person who led the exchange contract on the land of the victim Q Q from the beginning, and in the process, knew S and acquired the victim's land by deceiving S by means of not notifying the existence of the right to collateral security established on the land exchanged with the victim as proxy.

Therefore, among the facts charged in the instant case, it is also found guilty of fraud against the victim Q.

B. As to the guilty portion of the judgment of the court below which was unfair in sentencing, the sentence of the court below (one year of imprisonment and two years of suspended sentence) is too uneasy and unfair.

2. Determination

A. The lower court, on the grounds indicated in its reasoning, concluded an exchange contract on Q Q’s land solely based on the evidence submitted by the prosecutor as to the fraud of the victim Q, among the facts charged in the instant case, by deceiving the Defendant as the actual operator of Q Q as the actual operator of N, and concluding the exchange contract on Q Q’s land.

Since it is insufficient to recognize this part of the facts charged is not guilty.

In addition, the reasoning of the lower judgment’s acquittal and the evidence of this case should be examined closely, and the person who entered into a contract with O to purchase 1,686m2 in Echeon-si PY on March 2010, and the person who paid the purchase price appears to be Z [the subject of the relevant sales agency contract is N in the name of Z representative director (2No. 242 page of the evidence record)], the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to acknowledge that the Defendant actually entered into an exchange contract with Q’s land, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise, the lower court is justifiable to have acquitted this part of the facts charged on the basis of the aforementioned determination of evidence.

Therefore, prosecutor's assertion of mistake is without merit.

B. Determination of the wrongful assertion of sentencing is based on the amount of damage to the instant crime of fraud, 165 million won.