The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal reveals that although the Defendant did not pay in full the premium of KRW 16 million to the original seller and divided it into the Defendant himself/herself and the broker, the Defendant would not pay in full the premium of KRW 16 million to the original seller, and if he/she knew that the premium of this case was not paid in full to the original seller, he/she would not conclude the sales contract of the instant sales right. Therefore, the Defendant could be found to have obtained the above premium of the premium by deceiving E by violating the duty to notify the matters relating to the distribution of premium as above.

Nevertheless, the lower court rendered a not guilty verdict on the facts charged of this case, which erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. On October 12, 2009, the Defendant made a false statement to the effect that “The above real estate should be sold to the seller with the price of KRW 16 million,00,000,000,000,000,000,000 to the victim E when mediating the sale and purchase of KRW 202/2602, in the front office of the Goyang-gu Seoul Metropolitan City Model House D apartment Model House, Goyang-gu.”

However, the fact was that there was no intention of both the seller to receive money from the victim under the name of the victim and the broker was intended to have part of the premium.

The Defendant, as such, by deceiving the victim, received 16 million won from the victim under his/her pretext as a premium.

3. Determination

A. The lower court’s judgment is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant told the seller (G) to pay a premium of KRW 16 million in the police statement and the written accusation of the Defendant, and that E did not confirm to whom the Defendant’s judgment belongs, and that E is in mind of future market price gains.