All of the appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

1. According to the summary of the grounds for appeal and the statement by the victim, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendants of the facts charged in this case on different premise, although the Defendants had sufficiently acknowledged the facts by deceiving the victims, is erroneous in matters of law or of law.

2. Determination

A. The judgment of the court below is based on the following circumstances acknowledged by the records, ① according to the contents of the agreement entered into between the Defendants and the victim, the Defendants merely state that the Defendants are responsible for and responsible for the tax imposed in relation to the instant real estate, ② it is difficult to interpret the Defendants to act on behalf of the victims in terms of the language of the agreement, ② the Defendant was consulted with the friendly tax accountant and consulted with them to prepare the contents of the agreement, and ③ if the Defendants were to act on behalf of the victim, as alleged by the victim, there was a need for cooperation between the victim and the actual representative of the corporation (D), and the victim was also aware that the cooperation is necessary in relation to the imposition of corporate tax. The victim did not inquire the Defendants about the fact that the Defendants did not make any request for materials related to the tax issue, and ④ before the Defendants transferred the instant real estate, it is difficult for the Defendants to act on behalf of the victim and the witness in light of the fact that the Defendants did not perform their duty under the agreement with the victim, thereby making it difficult for the Defendants to act on behalf of the victim and the victim.