The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence presented by the prosecutor as to the gist of the grounds for appeal, even if the ownership of the G commercial building in this case owned by the victim K (hereinafter “victim”) exceeds C, it is recognized that the Defendant acquired the pecuniary benefits that would enable C to transfer the ownership of the land in this case owned by C to transfer the ownership of the land in this case to C by deceiving the victim and allowing C to transfer the ownership of the land in this case.

However, the court below acquitted the charged facts of this case on the ground that there is no proof of crime.

Therefore, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged in this case concluded a contract with the husband D, who represented C on July 6, 2007, to exchange 1,200 square meters of equity shares of 227,283 square meters of F forest land owned by E (hereinafter “Bansung City Forest”) and 2,01 commercial buildings on the land outside G of Y201 (hereinafter “G commercial buildings”) owned by Sungnam-si, Sungnam-si, Sungnam-si, and then used the said commercial building with the consent of C to raise funds necessary with I around July 10, 207. However, the credit service provider imposed a debt on behalf of the Defendant, instead of the Defendant, on the wind of provisional attachment of the housing owned by C.

After that, as C demanded that the above commercial building be settled the debt that it had been leased as a collateral, the Defendant thought that the victim had transferred the land outside of the Yacheon-si L (hereinafter referred to as the “Yacheon-si land”) to C in the name of debt repayment against C, and around June 2008, the land in Echeon-si owned by the victim is the G commercial building owned by C.