The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant, who is not able to develop the forest in Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun, where it is impossible to develop (hereinafter “the forest in this case”), deceivings five victims, such as Ulsan-gun, to “Quasi-Preservation Mountainous District,” thereby taking money equivalent to the sale price of the forest in this case. However, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendant on the ground that E, etc. was aware of the current status of the forest in this case

2. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is the representative director of H in Busan Dong-gu H, and the Defendant, on November 7, 201, had purchased on November 7, 201, was a quasi-preserved mountainous district with a size of 341m2,00 square meters among the total area of the instant forest land purchased by the Defendant, and the remainder was a preserved mountainous district. As such, even though the remaining preserved mountainous district was virtually limited development such as the construction of electric power resources, the Defendant, through employees of the said company, including J and K, was in mind to sell the said forest by dividing

At H office around April 2012 and around May 5, 2012, the Defendant made a false statement to the victim E, who is the said company, through J, that “the instant forest may be developed, such as the construction of electric source, as a quasi-permanent conservation area.” The Defendant may sell 8,550,000 won under the name of the victim on June 21, 2012, and 1,3350,000 won under the name of sale of 66 square meters of the said forest land on September 21, 2012, and 2,1,90,000 won under the name of 108 square meters of the said forest, and 2,1,000 won under the name of the victim on June 12, 2012, it is possible for the victim F to develop the said forest under the name of 5,000 square meters from the victim on June 12, 2012, including the said forest and 2,000.