The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, including the statement of victim H with credibility of the grounds for appeal, the court below found the defendant not guilty, despite the fact that the defendant sold the forest land of this case to a site where the construction of a house was possible, after changing the land category of the forest of this case into a site where a house was constructed as a whole, and there was no intention or ability to distribute the profit to the victim.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged is the actual representative director of the FF Company.

On October 201, the Defendant made a false statement to the victim H in Busan Dong-gu Gtel 401, stating that “Ulsan-gun I is currently forests and fields in Ulsan-gun, and there is a lot of money due to a change of land classification as a house for electric source within three to four months, and thereby investing KRW 100 million.”

However, before receiving investment money from the victim, the Defendant did not properly examine whether the said forest land can be land categoryed as a site. The said forest falls under the mountainous district for public interest among preserved mountainous districts and was not a place where land category can be changed within three to four months, and there was no ability to procure construction cost necessary for land category change.

On October 13, 2011, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as above, obtained a total of KRW 25 million from the victim by remitting the amount of KRW 5 million to the account under the name of the J, a representative director, and one’s own title, and 25 million to the same account on November 9 of the same year.

B. The lower court’s judgment: (a) the following circumstances acknowledged by the record, i.e., (i) the victim made an investment in the investigative agency or the court of the lower court on the ground that the forest land category of this case was changed within three to four months; (b) the land category of this case was not changed at the time; and (c) the Defendant was able to ask the surrounding real estate for a change of land category as an absolute land category.