The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds of appeal is as follows: (a) in full view of the content of the victim’s legal statement that the Defendants failed to give proper notice of the fact that the Defendants had failed to do so despite the fact that the reconstruction project was in an unsatisfy situation; and (b) details of the use of the transferred loan for the reconstruction

must be viewed.

2. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court based on the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, namely, (i) Defendant A obtained consent to redevelopment from the E apartment owners from around 2004 to around 2013, and (ii) Defendant A continued to attempt redevelopment projects from around October 3, 2014 to December 2014; (iii) the contents of conditional approval related to redevelopment are mainly related to the construction design drawings, and (iv) Defendant A’s E Apartment redevelopment project implementation process, such as the fact that it appears to have been satisfied if the construction works were selected, it is reasonable to have determined that the lower court obtained the Defendants by deception, and that there was no mistake as alleged by the prosecutor, as otherwise alleged by the prosecutor.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.