All of the appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

1. According to the summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts), the court below erred in the misapprehension of facts on the ground that the defendants are not guilty on the grounds that they are not reliable in each statement of E and S, even though the defendants could recognize the fact that they deceptioned the victim as stated in the facts charged.

2. The judgment below rendered a not-guilty verdict against the Defendants on the grounds as stated in its holding. Examining the various circumstances recognized by the court below in a close and thorough manner by recording and comparing them, the above judgment of the court below is just and acceptable. However, there is no doubt that the court below accepted the Defendants’ change of lawsuit that the Defendants, upon the Defendants’ consultation, disposed of the provisional contract amount for the land other than the L block commercial land in this case as the purchase price for the land and received the land in this case. However, there is no clear evidence to support that the above change was completely permissible, and on the other hand, there is a possibility that Defendant B would have provided the right of priority to the land in this case by using the method outside the regulations of the Housing Corporation for the roads where the defendants B would gain unfair profits, but even if so, it could not be completely ruled out the possibility that the victims would have been sold from the Housing Corporation for the land if the victims had prepared the down payment. In light of the records, even if the above change of lawsuit by the Defendants was rejected, the Defendants did not have the intent or ability to conclude the sale contract between the housing construction and the land.

It shall not be readily concluded.

Therefore, the above questions alone are insufficient to reverse the judgment of the court below, and there is no violation of law by mistake of facts, as alleged by the public prosecutor.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is without merit. Thus, Article 364 of the Criminal Procedure Act is not applicable.