The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

A Imprisonment with prison labor for six months, and for one year and six months, respectively.

(b).

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor;

A. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, in relation to the Defendants’ fraud, Defendant A’s executor, Defendant B, and the representative director of the Si Corporation (hereinafter “Korea Asset Trust”) who were responsible for the construction work on the remaining and three lots of land in Incheon, and the sale management trust contract with the Korea Asset Trust Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Korea Asset Trust”) was concluded, and E 507 (E507) (hereinafter “E507”) cannot be used for the payment of the construction cost without the consent of the Korea Asset Trust. Although the Defendants paid the sale price under e507 to the Korea Asset Trust and did not acquire ownership by paying the sale price under e507, the lower court found the Defendants not guilty of this part of the charges on the ground that there was no proof of the crime.

B. The key evidence supporting this part of the facts charged is O and Q’s statement. O and Q have made a statement corresponding to this part of the facts charged at the investigation agency, but they also made a statement contrary to this in the court of the court below. In light of the developments leading up to the occurrence of the case, the discovery and consistency of the statements at the investigation agency in the investigation agency, etc., the court below found the defendant guilty on the grounds that the statements at the O and Q’s investigation agency are credibility and this part of the facts charged is found guilty. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts charged on the ground that there was no proof of the crime.

2. The prosecutor’s fraud of the facts charged in the instant case.