The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court acquitted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged on June 3, 2011, on the ground that the Defendant and the victim H did not specify the subject matter when a sales contract was concluded, and the victim continued to perform the contract, such as payment of intermediate payments, even after raising an objection by M, etc. against some items in the process of specifying the subject matter. According to the records, upon entering into a sales contract, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have sold the subject matter in a fraudulent manner. According to the records, at the time of entering into the sales contract, the Defendant specified the subject matter in a way that the Defendant instructs individual items, and the payment of the down payment and the intermediate payment is due to a separate act, but the payment of the down payment is due to a separate act, so it is sufficient to prove the Defendant as to this part of the crime against the Defendant, such as the payment of the down payment

Nevertheless, there is an error of misconception of the fact that the court below acquitted the defendant.

B. On June 4, 2011, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged on the grounds that the Defendant: (a) acting as an intermediary for a sales contract between I and the victim, or the victim’s explanation and wrong judgment should be deemed to have reached the sales contract; and (b) the Defendant, despite having given accurate explanation from I’s representative P, etc. at the time, should be deemed to have falsely removed the object of the sales contract which he brokered even though I received the successful bid, and thus, should be found guilty.

Nevertheless, there is an error of misconception of facts that the court below acquitted.

2. The court below duly adopted and examined the judgment.