The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds of appeal is that the whole purport of the testimony of this case by the defendant is not to distinguish the existing expansion and new expansion, and the commercial building leased by C from D was used in the same state as that by the relocating lessee. However, unlike this, the defendant testified to the effect that C had no finalized construction work only for the existing expansion part, and the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant of the facts charged of this case by misunderstanding the fact that C did not have any finalized construction work

2. Determination

A. A. Around December 6, 2012, the Defendant was present at the court of Seoul Northern District Court located in Dobong-gu Seoul, Dobong-gu, Seoul, 226, Dobong-2, 626, and C brought an action against D for return of unjust enrichment under the above court No. 2012, 46508, and took an oath as witness.