The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the above punishment for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Although the statement of D was partially reversed, the court below acquitted the defendant on the ground that it is difficult to believe D's statement despite its credibility in the final statement made at the prosecution investigation stage, although it was proved that D's statement was insufficient. Thus, the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The lower court determined that: (a) the statement of D, the core evidence proving the Defendant’s crime, is frequently changed from the investigative agency to this court; and (b) committed a crime in collusion with the Defendant.

Considering that the time when the statement was made was being tried as a crime of fraud against E, it is difficult to recognize the credibility of the statement. The E’s statement is merely a inferred statement that the defendant would have conspired with D, and the other evidence submitted by the prosecution has been comprehensively taken into account, the criminal defendant sold real estate in collusion with D as stated in the facts charged in the judgment of the court below.

The defendant was found not guilty in accordance with the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act as it was insufficient to recognize it.

B. However, the lower court’s determination is difficult to accept for the following reasons.

In other words, in light of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below, the defendant knew that D had concluded a real estate sales contract with the victim and received an intermediate payment, and the victim had a duty to transfer the ownership of the apartment of this case to F and transferred the ownership of the apartment of this case, so the judgment below which acquitted the defendant of the crime of breach of trust is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to mistake of facts affecting the conclusion of the judgment or establishment of embezzlement, and the prosecutor's assertion pointing this out is with merit.

1) December 14, 2013