The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal did not simple legal disputes surrounding the above real estate within 60 days to the extent that the transfer of ownership of FJ 105 201 dong 201 (hereinafter “the instant real estate”) was possible at the time of entering into a sales contract with the victim. Rather, the defendant’s business plan outlook itself was unclear to resolve legal disputes and sell FJ 20 dong 105 201 dong 201 (hereinafter “the instant real estate”), and it was unclear whether the Defendant’s characteristic of the sales contract prepared with the victim is security use or for concluding a contract. In fact, the ownership transfer registration of the instant real estate was not made, and the Defendant did not return the sales price thereafter, the lower court acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged of the instant case, but did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to mistake of facts

2. In full view of the developments leading up to the conclusion of the sales contract between the Defendant and the victim, the Defendant before and after the conclusion of the sales contract, the plan for the sale of f loan money and its progress, and the investigation progress against the J that the victim accused, etc., the lower court determined that the Defendant was aware of the situation of the instant real estate at the time of paying the investment money, and that the Defendant was thought to have actually sold the real estate after all resolution of the problems in the instant real estate. As such, it is insufficient to recognize that the victim’s partial statement among the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor was not reliable and other evidence alone was deceiving the victim, and that there was no other evidence to acknowledge this, the lower court acquitted the Defendant of the instant facts charged.

The circumstances of the original judgment are based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court.