The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the evidence presented in the gist of the grounds of appeal, although the defendant did not have the intent or ability to implement the procedure of permission for the establishment of a factory, the procedure of permission for a land transaction contract and the registration of transfer of ownership to the victims, the court below erred by misapprehending the fact that the defendant was acquitted.

2. Summary of the facts charged and the judgment of the court below

A. The summary of the facts charged is as follows: (a) the Defendant, in entering into a sales contract for a part of the instant land with the victim Co., Ltd. D (hereinafter “D”), E, victim E, F, AB, AC, and AD (hereinafter “F, etc.”), even if he receives the purchase price from the victims, he/she would have performed the procedures for establishing a factory in accordance with the purpose of the contract; (b) he/she did not have the intent to implement the procedures for permission for the transaction of the relevant land and to transfer ownership; and (c) he/she, under the pretext of the intermediate payment of KRW 2.5 billion on Nov. 5, 2005; (d) the sum of KRW 160 million on Dec. 5, 2005; and (e) KRW 2.5 billion on Dec. 16, 2005; and (e) KRW 2.6 million on Dec. 16, 2005; and (e) KRW 2.6 million on the part of intermediate payment.2 million on the victim’s.

B. The lower court determined that the Defendant and the victims were the content of each sales contract between the Defendant and the victims, the process of applying for permission regarding the instant real estate after the conclusion of the contract, and the attitude of the Defendant and the victims in various civil lawsuits related to the instant case.