The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. In light of the fact that the statement of the defendant is not consistent, the witness J of the original instance was prosecuted for perjury, and the witness K of the original instance is closely related to the defendant, even though it is difficult to believe the statement, the lower court acquitted the defendant on the ground that the defendant did not have the intention of deceiving the defendant on the grounds that the statement of the defendant and the witness was made. The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles.

2. Around November 10, 2012, the summary of the facts charged stated in the charge that “A” office of the Defendant’s operation in the Nam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and that “The victim E shall deduct the Defendant’s YYYY-gu YYY-gu YYY-gu YYY-gu YYY-gu YY-gu YY-gu YYY-gu Y

However, even if the defendant received money from the victim, he did not have the intention or ability to deposit this money with F or deliver it to the victim with the right to share the non-contractual share of the above apartment.

Nevertheless, on December 1, 2012, the Defendant received a total of KRW 25 million from the victim, such as delivery of KRW 5 million in cash at H hotel “I restaurant” located in Gwangju-dong G, Gwangju-gu, and KRW 25 million from the above office on December 3, 2012 at KRW 19:00.

3. The court of the judgment and the court below found the following facts based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court of the judgment, i.e., ① the victim E was present as a witness of the Gwangju District Court 2013 Godan6122 case and stated to the effect that “The defendant refused to accept the text message stating six apartment loans from the defendant, but only thought that the apartment houses presented by the defendant did not make any profit.” Thus, there is no circumstance to suspect the credibility of the E statement, ② E does not have any circumstance to suspect the credibility of the E statement, and ② E goes against the defendant, “the amount of KRW 25 million deducted the apartment house, not the amount deducted from the sale price, but rather the amount of KRW 25 million.