The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In this case, the construction was suspended since August 201, 201, following the conclusion of the contract for the instant field restaurant on July 27, 201.

However, in other cases where an investigation was initiated upon the I’s complaint, the Corporation was suspended from July 201 (i.e., from July 27, 2011, the date of the instant crime). As such, the Defendant’s prior statement concerning the period of discontinuance of construction cannot be deemed to be reliable, and rather, the Defendant voluntarily stated that “the construction was suspended for a period from April 201 to April 201, where I received KRW 10 million as a down payment at the site restaurant” in light of the fact that “the construction was suspended for a period of four months from around April 2011, where I received KRW 10 million as a down payment at the site restaurant”, it is deemed that at the time of entering into the instant on-site restaurant contract, the Defendant was already anticipated that the Corporation will

B. In addition, I returned KRW 10 million via D only when it was around December 2, 201, and I stated that “I was paid KRW 5 million and a penalty of KRW 5 million and a penalty of KRW 5 million as the introduction fee delivered to D, not the contract deposit,” while the Defendant entered into the instant field restaurant contract, but did not obtain the consent of I, which was the existing contractor, and did not make any contact with I regarding the validity of the existing contract. In light of the fact that I could adjust the existing contract relationship in return of the down payment to I by himself, without confirming whether the existing contract was rescinded properly, the Defendant entered into the instant field restaurant contract at least without recognizing that the instant field restaurant contract was a double contract.

C. In full view of the above circumstances, the facts charged in this case are sufficiently proven.