The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (in fact-finding) is consistent in the investigative agency and the lower court’s trial, and consistent therewith, F made a statement that “F was present at the meeting of March 14, 2012 (hereinafter “instant meeting”) and “F was present at the meeting of this case,” along with himself/herself, in Gdo, investigative agency and the lower court’s court, consistent with the relevant civil case law.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant since F testified that F did not attend the meeting of this case, although F had attended the meeting of this case, it was erroneous in the misconception of facts.

2. The gist of the facts charged is that the Defendant works for the promotion company company.

Basic Facts

On July 25, 2008, D Co., Ltd. newly constructed and donated a military unit of 6501 unit in the Army located in Madong-dong-dong-dong-si, and entered into a contract for the transfer of land, E, etc. in return for the transfer of land, and planned to build a new apartment on the ground thereof. From July 2010, D attempted to enter into a contract for the effective and the above construction, but did not reach an agreement. On October 17, 2011, D entered into a contract for each of the above construction with the promotion company, the effective and effective shares of which are 46%.

D Co., Ltd. demanded a guarantee of completion of liability to an filial and promotion company for the project financing of the above construction, but it could not carry out the construction on the wind to refuse the effectiveness, and on March 16, 2012, the promotion company was released from the said contract upon the agreement of both parties on March 14, 2012.

‘The document’ sent its content.

However, D argues that the above contract is still effective, and that it unilaterally cancelled the contract while the promotion company delayed the commencement without any justifiable reason, and it is in an impossible condition by refusing the commencement of the above construction works, and thus, damage KRW 3.2 billion.