The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

In light of the victim's specific and consistent statement, it is sufficient to recognize the defendant's deception, and even if the criminal intent of deception is fully recognized, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant.

2. Determination

A. The burden of proof for the criminal facts prosecuted in a criminal trial is to be borne by the public prosecutor, and the conviction is to be based on the evidence of probative value that makes the judge feel true beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, if there is no such evidence, the defendant is suspected to be guilty, even if there is no such evidence.

Even if there is no choice but to judge the interests of the defendant.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Do4737 delivered on February 24, 2006, etc.). B.

The summary of the facts charged of this case is that the Defendant, not the owner of the building of this case, was not the owner of the building of this case and did not have the authority to change the purpose of use of the whole building to medical facilities or to sell the whole building of this case. However, the Defendant, who was the owner of the building of this case and was the owner of the building of this case, had the intention or ability to change the purpose of use of the entire building to medical facilities and had the intention or ability to sell the price lower than the market price, and

C. As to this, the lower court: (a) the instant building was divided into 129 units at the time of entering into a pre-sale agreement; and (b) most of the buildings were registered for transfer of ownership in another person’s name; (c) the victim could have confirmed the legal relationship through the registration certificate, etc.; (d) the victim was in the state of confirming the operation of quasi-medical facilities and the change of the purpose of use thereof; and (b) when the Defendant notified the victim of the termination of the pre-sale agreement, the victim