The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor to the gist of the grounds for appeal, although the defendant could sufficiently recognize the fact that the defendant conspired with D that he could not have the victim acquire the ownership of the instant officetel, by deceiving the victim, thereby deceiving the proceeds of the sale of the instant officetel, the court below acquitted the defendant of the charges of this case. The court below erred in the misapprehension of facts and the incomplete deliberation.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is the actual operator of E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”), who newly constructs and sells “G” officetels on the fourth and fourth parcels of the Seo-gu, Gwangju.

E Upon entering into a trust contract with an international asset trust company, no one shall acquire ownership because it is impossible to recognize the right of sale from the above trust company unless he/she pays the sale price to the designated deposit account of the trust company without entering into the contract with the above trust company.

The Defendant conspired with D that the instant officetel No. 1038 (hereinafter “the instant officetel”) was normally sold by the said trust company, and was not in a position to resell the instant officetel because there was no adequate purchase price by E in lieu of the construction price. Therefore, even if the instant officetel was sold to a third party, it is not possible to have the victim acquire ownership. On August 24, 2015, the Defendant presented the sales contract in the name of the Defendant to the victim I at the E office located in the Seo-gu in Gwangju-gu, Gwangju-gu, stating that “The resale of the goods received in lieu of the construction cost would directly change the price to B, if the damaged party would have acquired the ownership of the instant officetel by the right to sell the goods which he received in lieu of the construction cost.” The Defendant deceivings the damaged person to acquire the ownership of the instant officetel under the pretext of the resale price of the instant officetel, and then, he/she purchased the instant officetel 1, 190,000 won from the injured party.