The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor of the summary of the grounds for appeal, since the river area (2,546 square meters) (2,546 square meters) among the nine lots of land (6,09 square meters) in this case is not possible to permit occupancy and use, and the flood control area (3,165 square meters) is able to be filled up to the planned flood level, it is difficult to obtain permission to do so for all the nine lots of land in this case, the Defendant entered into a contract with the victim for purchase and sale of the nine lots of land in this case with the victim, stating that “The permission to do so is possible to do so for all the nine lots of land in this case.” The lower court found the victim not guilty of the facts charged in this case, which is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The burden of proof for the criminal facts prosecuted in a criminal trial is to be borne by the public prosecutor, and the conviction of guilt is to be based on the evidence of probative value, which makes the judge feel true beyond a reasonable doubt. If there is no evidence to establish such a degree of conviction, it is doubtful that the defendant is guilty even if there is no evidence to establish such a conviction.

Even if there is no choice but to judge the interests of the defendant.

(See Supreme Court Decision 9Do4305 delivered on February 25, 2000, etc.). B.

In light of the above legal principles, if the evidence of this case is examined in detail in light of the records, it is difficult to view that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone, for the reasons indicated in its reasoning, was proved to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt that the defendant, instead of being liable for nonperformance under the contract of this case to the victim, by deceiving the victim and taking the down payment into account, and that it was proved otherwise.