The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual errors and misapprehension of the legal principles) argues that the Defendant is a loan which is not the purchase price, in the name of receiving KRW 500 million from the victim’s social welfare foundation D (hereinafter “D”), but there is no evidence that the Defendant borrowed the above money, whereas the Defendant does not have any evidence that the Defendant borrowed the above money, the

G. Each land below is a number of circumstances supporting that the above money is a purchase price, such as cancelling senior security rights established only in a specific parcel number and leaving documents necessary for the principal registration after provisional registration to a certified judicial scrivener office.

In addition, among the above KRW 500 million received from D, the Defendant neglected the risk of the commencement of the auction of the instant land due to the Defendant’s failure to use only KRW 330 million for cancellation of senior security right established on the instant land, and due to the consumption of the remainder for other purposes and to cancel the provisional seizure under the name of O.

Comprehensively taking account of these circumstances, even though the Defendant could fully recognize the facts charged of the instant case that the Defendant by deceiving D without the intention to transfer the ownership of the instant land and building and obtained the payment of KRW 500 million for the purchase price, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine and thereby acquitted the Defendant.

2. In full view of the developments leading up to the sale of the instant land, the Defendant’s execution act, and the progress of the auction procedure regarding the instant land, etc., the lower court determined that even if the Defendant failed to perform the ownership transfer obligation promised to D by asserting that the provisional registration established on the instant land was a provisional registration for security, it is insufficient to view that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone proves that the Defendant was unaware of D without the intention to transfer the ownership of the instant land and the building and received the payment of the purchase price was insufficient to have proven that there was no reasonable doubt.