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 defendant could be found to have deceiving G Co., Ltd. and limited liability companies I (hereinafter referred to as “victims”) that are victim companies through D and acquired a total of 600 million won from the victim companies.

Nevertheless, the court below rendered a not-guilty verdict on the facts charged of this case. The court below erred by misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles.

2. Determination

A. On June 2015, the summary of the facts charged in the instant case, the Defendant, from the second floor of “C” located in Yasan-gu, Seoul Special Self-Governing Party B, on the second floor of “C”, and D, at approximately 8,000 square meters (hereinafter “instant site”), an apartment project (hereinafter “instant project”) may be constructed at a height of at least 43 meters. On the other hand, the success of the project is about 10 billion won. In relation to the permission for the alteration of the current state of cultural heritage, the public officials in charge were confirmed as to the permission for the alteration of the current state of cultural heritage. As F apartment near the instant site came to have been on the 12th floor, at least 12th apartment units may be built on the instant site.”

On June 2015, D continuously delivered the statement to H to the representative director of the victim G G company, and the victim G Co., Ltd and the victim limited liability company I appointed D as a representative and entered into a contract with the defendant to acquire the ownership of the Chungcheong E, J, and K real estate and the business rights of the land of this case from the defendant in KRW 1.3 billion.

However, in fact, the Defendant did not have confirmed whether the public official in charge can place an apartment with a height of 43 meters in relation to the permission for the alteration of the current state of cultural heritage. The instant site was an area where the permission for the alteration of the current state of cultural heritage was required, and it was difficult to place an apartment with a height of

Nevertheless, the defendant is above.