The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, according to the summary of the grounds for appeal, the defendant decided to mediate the purchase and sale of the first shopping mall, and even if Eul cancels the above contract after the payment of the intermediate payment and pays the balance, the above contract cannot be performed even if Eul cancels the above contract, it can be acknowledged that the above contract was made by deceiving D as if it was not effective to refund the above contract fee and received the balance from the victim. However, the judgment of the court below that acquitted the defendant of the facts charged, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, is erroneous in the misapprehension of the fact that the above contract was not effective.

2. Determination:

A. On October 24, 2009, the summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant, who runs real estate brokerage business, purchased the EF apartment first shopping tickets in the order of KRW 85 million from the victim D and the victim at the office of the middle-class office of the real estate operated by himself/herself on October 24, 2009. On the same day, the Defendant arranged a contract between E and the victim to sell the EF apartment first shopping tickets in the price of KRW 80 million, and paid the remainder of KRW 70 million to E on November 16, 2009.

On November 16, 2009, the above E received only KRW 39 million on November 16, 2009, and was not paid KRW 31 million on December 2, 2009, and notified the Defendant that the above sales contract was cancelled.

However, the Defendant did not notify the victim of the cancellation of the sales contract in order to not return the commission for the above sales contract already received from the victim, and did not notify the victim of the cancellation of the sales contract, and received the statement that the balance was prepared by telephone at the above real estate brokerage office around December 4, 2009 from G, which is the victim’s agent, by telephone, from the victim’s agent. As such, even if the above sales contract had been terminated, the Defendant still received the balance from the said G in the real estate office as if the above sales contract had not been terminated.