The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court found the Defendant not guilty of the following facts charged by misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine is erroneous, as seen below.

1) Whether the Defendant’s deception and the intent of deception by deception is based on September 23, 2015, should be determined on the basis of the light on September 23, 2015.

(1) The time of judgment on the Defendant’s deception and fraud shall be deemed to have completed the registration of ownership transfer in his/her name on September 23, 2015, where the Defendant, not around March 24, 2015, prepared a letter of performance under the name of the victim (from No. 9, 8 to 10, 300; hereinafter “instant performance letter”).

(2) Around July 2015 to August 8, 2015, the Defendant Company F (hereinafter “F”) operated by the Defendant was in the difficult condition to manage the Company due to a trader’s default. As such, the Defendant was able to not only at the time but also at the time of the default, but also at around September 23, 2015, to the situation where the Defendant would have to pay the F’s obligation under his/her joint and several guarantee.

Therefore, around September 23, 2015, around September 23, 2015, the following can be inferred: (a) the Defendant acquired the ownership of the instant land and sold the land, and then intended to use the proceeds therefrom.

(3) If any change occurs in circumstances in which the Defendant is unable to perform the obligation under the instant written execution, the Defendant did not notify the victim of the change in contractual obligation under the good faith principle, but did not notify the victim of the change in the contractual obligation, thereby making a fraudulent act by omission. Accordingly, the victim consented to the transfer of the ownership of the instant land by the Defendant or raised any objection thereto at least.