The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, at the time of entering into a sales contract with C, was issued the sales price by deceiving C even though it did not have the intent or ability to sell the building normally.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment on the contrary premise.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (a three-year imprisonment, a five-year grace period, a observation of protection, and a community service work time of 200 hours) is deemed unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. On October 13, 2015, the summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant would bring considerable investment profits to the Defendant’s sales company (ju) office located in the Gangseo-gu Busan Metropolitan City H, and to the Victim C, “If a new airport is confined in the Acuk-do, a considerable amount of investment profits may be raised.

Our plans AV lending, and the selling price will be completed until January 30, 2016.

“A false statement” was made.

However, the Defendant had no intention or ability to sell money to the victim as promised to borrow money, even if the Defendant received the money from the victim, because the Defendant was in a situation in which the Defendant carried out the sales business unreasonably by borrowing money from the investors in the right of the Defendant and the neighboring investors and prevented the return of the money that he received from the new investor.

Accordingly, the Defendant, as seen above, was accused of the victim, and was delivered to the AM bank account in the name of BE of the AT building (hereinafter “instant building”) in the name of the victim for the sale price, KRW 50 million on October 13, 2015, KRW 10 million on November 2, 2015, KRW 20 million on January 15, 2016, KRW 20 million on January 15, 2016, KRW 50 million on February 19, 2016, and KRW 55 million on February 19, 2016.

B. In full view of the following facts and circumstances, the lower court determined that the Defendant’s right to claim for the registration of transfer of ownership by cancelling the sales contract without the intention to return the sales price on November 2016.