The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. In full view of the contents of the contract for the transfer of the instant shares and the existing ownership relationship with the instant shares, the victim’s intent, etc., the intent of the criminal intent to acquire the instant shares is sufficiently recognized.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the charged facts of this case is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. The lower court determined that the Defendant received the instant shares from H without intent or ability to pay the purchase price, solely based on the evidence submitted by the prosecutor on the grounds of detailed circumstances as indicated in its reasoning.

The defendant was found innocent because it is insufficient to recognize it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

The judgment of the court below is examined in comparison with relevant legal principles and records, and even before the instant case, the Defendant prepared a formal transfer contract and delivered the instant shares to H without receiving the purchase price, even though the terms and conditions of the agreement prepared around November 201 was not met, at the request of H working in the principal customer even before the instant case, and thereafter, the Defendant demanded the Defendant to hold the shares of the principal customer and had the instant shares transferred again to the Defendant company as a result of audit at the company where H was in office due to holding the shares of the principal customer. The Defendant prepared a contract for acquisition of shares during the process of re-transfer, but it seems reasonable to think that it would have not been paid the remainder of the purchase price which he thought to transfer to H again at the request of H, and there was no error of law by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

The prosecutor's argument is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is justified.