The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant, while selling a house site to the victims, agreed with the victims to donate the Seopo-si F, which is the access road to the site of the electric source which the victims owned by the Defendant and the access road to the site of the electric source (hereinafter “the road of this case”), and thus, the agreement of donation of this case constitutes the essential content of the real estate sales contract and constitutes the act of protecting or managing the victims’ property, and thus, the Defendant is deemed to be in the position of “a person who administers another’s business.” However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine or misapprehending the legal doctrine.

2. In light of the facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the lower court’s determination that the Defendant was not sufficiently recognized as having been in the position of “a person who administers another’s business” is justifiable. Therefore, the Prosecutor’s allegation contained

In addition, the facts charged of this case are that the victims suffered damages from the disposal of the road of this case, and the victims still hold ownership of each house of this case, so it is difficult to view that the victims suffered damages as identical to the facts charged of this case since they still hold ownership of each house of this case). 3. Thus, the prosecutor's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.