Defendant

All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Article 9(6) of the contract for sale in lots concluded between the victims of the crime of occupational breach of trust (hereinafter “C”) and the Defendant (hereinafter “C”) provides that “C shall make a conditional trust to a real estate trust company designated by C after completion of the contract for sale in lots, and upon the buyer’s failure to pay part of the balance or obtain a loan from C due to the buyer’s circumstances, the purchaser shall make a decision on the method of securing claims (such as collateral security, provisional registration, etc.) upon consultation with C. The buyer shall consult with C. In this case, the cost shall be calculated by the purchaser.” ② Article 8(2) of the special terms of the contract for sale in lots concluded between C and C (the “C”; hereinafter “Y”) cannot be deemed as the first beneficiary (aP trust agreement before modification, Q&A, and hereinafter “AP”) and the intermediate payment for sale in lots, which have not been completed after completion of the contract for sale in lots, and the Defendant’s purchase of the contract for sale in lots and the intermediate payment for the pertinent trust property cannot be deemed as CY.”

B. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor (in fact-finding or misapprehension of legal principles and unreasonable sentencing) 1 prosecutor, even if the defendant received the down payment, intermediate payment, or balance with D’s defense room from the victims of the crime of fraud of this case, he was considered to be used as C’s operating capital, the down payment, intermediate payment, or balance with D’s defense room.