The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles)

A. The props of the instant land delegated housing improvement projects to the Defendants, and concluded a security trust contract for the instant land owned by them to obtain loans from M Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “M”). This constitutes a status of cooperation to preserve and manage victims’ property according to high-level trust relationship, not just a contractual relationship.

Therefore, in the event that it is impossible to carry out a project according to a joint project agreement and a public sale of land is carried out, the Defendants are obligated to notify the prop of the fact so that the collateral trust for the land can be terminated.

In addition, only one prop has paid the land in advance of the construction contribution of the joint project agreement.

B. The Defendants did not intend to carry out the housing improvement project from the beginning, such as where the Defendants either voluntarily raised the construction contribution from the existing 9.5 million won to the existing 9.5 million won and specifically promoted the project.

The Defendants discovered seven parcels of the project site in their personal name and interfered with the receipt of a successful bid by other persons during the public auction process, and notified the victims of the renunciation of the project, and paid a one-year interest by extending the lending period to Q Savings Bank for one year. After one year, the Defendants suspended the payment of interest after one year, and continued the public auction procedure for the instant land.

The Defendants’ failure to make payment by intention despite the ability to pay interest, which led to the progress of the public auction procedure, and the lowest amount equivalent to the loan principle in that procedure, and eventually, the owner of the instant land was awarded a successful bid and changed from the victims to the Defendants. Such series of acts by the Defendants constitute a breach of trust against the victims.

(c)

However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the crime of breach of trust.