The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor of the gist of the grounds for appeal, the fact was that the defendant did not have the ability to purchase the land of Eunpyeong-gu Seoul, Seoul, and the victims did not have the land on the understanding angle concluded between the defendant and the Seoul Special Metropolitan City EP Corporation, and the victims did not have any capacity to develop hot spring on the land, and there was no intention or ability to pay the price even if the victims did not have been provided with equipment, labor, expenses, etc. from the hot spring development, the court below found the victims guilty of the facts of fraud by misapprehending the legal principles on the charges, although the defendant did not have any capacity to develop hot spring on the land, and there was no intention or ability to pay the price for the above land to the victims even though he had been provided with hot spring development from the victims. Since the defendant had already been agreed with the Seoul Special Metropolitan City EP Corporation to purchase a hot spring special zone and had already been permitted to develop a hot spring, it would pay 1 billion won with the price when the hot spring was developed.

2. Determination

A. The lower court, based on the evidence adopted and examined, concluded a memorandum of understanding on the sale of land as described in the facts charged with the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Es. S. Es. (hereinafter “Es. Es.”) and concluded the same period of validity under the above memorandum of understanding with Es.S. (hereinafter “Es.”). However, although the period of validity under the above protocol of understanding was set on February 21, 2014, the said period of validity can be extended upon consultation between the parties concerned under the above protocol of understanding, and Es. Es. (E.) is above the Defendant’s side.