All appeals filed by the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual error) where Defendant A was unable to pay the interest on the loans of each apartment of this case, even though he was well aware that the auction procedure for each apartment of this case was in progress, he was entrusted to E with the authority to dispose of each apartment of this case, and acquired the amount of the lease deposit from the victims without informing the victims of the above circumstances. In consideration of all circumstances including the relationship with the Defendants and the fact that Defendant B was attending the site at the time when the lease contract was concluded, although Defendant B did not have any profit from the crime of this case, it shall be deemed that Defendant A is liable for the joint principal offense in fraud with Defendant A. However, the court below acquitted the Defendants on the ground that there was no proof of the facts charged. Accordingly, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts and thereby affecting

2. We examine the judgment. The court below held that Defendant A cannot be deemed to have acquired lease deposit as stated in the facts charged by deceiving the victims on the ground that Defendant A entrusted all the authority on the lease of each apartment of this case to E, and that Defendant B did not specifically intervene in the process of concluding each of the lease agreements of this case, and that Defendant B did not have any benefit therefrom, and sentenced Defendant B not guilty of the Defendants on the ground that he did not have been involved in the process of concluding each of the lease agreements of this case. In comparison with the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and its reasoning, the above judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and it does not seem to have any error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts.

Therefore, the prosecutor's argument of mistake is without merit.

3. Accordingly, the Prosecutor’s appeal against the Defendants is justified.