The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. With respect to the main facts charged in the instant case’s main facts charged, even if the Defendant explicitly stated that the victim is entitled to receive the premium from the subsequent lessee, the act of receiving the premium from the subsequent lessee constitutes a premise for receiving the premium from the Defendant, and thus, it should be deemed that there was a deception by the Defendant’s implied speech and behavior.

In relation to the ancillary facts of this case, if the victim knew that he was unable to receive the premium from a lessor or a subsequent lessee, the Defendant paid the premium to the lessor and did not enter into a contract for transfer of the premium to H restaurant facilities. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated under the good faith principle to notify the victim, who is a subsequent lessee, of the agreement for prohibition of receiving the premium.

In the judgment of the court below which acquitted all the primary and conjunctive charges of this case, there is an error of mistake or misapprehension of legal principles.

2. As to the facts in the surrounding and conjunctive charges of this case, the judgment of the court below is examined together with the following circumstances that can be recorded in addition to the circumstances that were based on the judgment of innocence. In other words, the victim stated in the prosecutor's investigation that the defendant would be fine for the amount of KRW 200 million because the defendant's daily sales of the H restaurant would be more than KRW 200,000 or KRW 300,000,000, in the prosecutor's investigation, and it would be said that the victim would be paid as the premium, and the victim could transfer it because it is not a lessor, and the defendant could not own facilities such as the restaurant house, and according to the lease contract dated June 26, 2012 between the victim and C, it is clearly stated that the victim does not demand any premium from the lessor.