The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

The summary of the grounds for appeal (based on factual errors, misunderstanding of legal principles) is that the Defendant was fully aware of the fact that the actual purchaser of the instant sales contract was the victim, and even if not accurately aware of such fact, the Defendant is obligated to implement the procedures for ownership transfer registration to the victim or E.

In other words, the Defendant had a duty to implement the registration procedure for ownership transfer of the instant land at the same time with the payment of the balance under the instant sales contract, and even though the instant sales contract cannot be deemed to have been legally rescinded, the Defendant completed the registration for ownership transfer of the instant land to I, thereby being convicted of the facts charged.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant, is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles.

2. Determination

A. The lower court found the Defendant not guilty on the ground that it is difficult to view that the Defendant had the intention of breach of trust, regardless of whether the contract was lawfully rescinded, in view of the fact that the victim and E did not pay the remainder for a long time and did not contact with the Defendant without running the business even after examining the developments leading up to the conclusion of the contract of this case and the circumstance before and after the conclusion of the contract of this case as to the possession of public waters and the provision of the contract of this case after the conclusion of the contract of this case, and that the victim and E did not have known the fact that he was the actual purchaser of the contract of this case as the contracting party.

B. The evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court as to whether the first victim was recognized as a party to the party’s judgment.