The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. In full view of the following circumstances, the Defendants did not have the intent or ability to exercise the right of vicarious sale to the complainant F.

Although it is reasonable to see that the first instance court did not have intention to commit fraud, and judged not guilty of the facts charged in the instant case, thereby misunderstanding the facts, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

(1) According to Articles 15 and 17 of the Trust Contract (hereinafter “instant Trust Contract”) concluded between Company D (hereinafter “D”) and International Asset Trust Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “International Asset Trust”), the right to sell the instant apartment, etc. is vested in an international asset trust.

She also held that the Defendants did not have the authority to select the selling agent in the case where the prohibition of sale related to the Defendants is a disposition, and that they only have the authority to recommend it.

was stated.

Secondly, even if the Defendants actually led to the selection of a sales agent.

Even if the defendants selected other companies against the commitment with F, it seems that the defendants intentionally conceal the fraud.

Applicant Other developments leading up to the conclusion of the instant trust contract, the Defendants and D’ economic conditions at the time, and the Defendants’ separate investigation results on the fraudulent proposal, etc., the Defendants’ intentional act and the facts charged were sufficiently proven.

I see that it is.

2. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the first instance court as the grounds for the judgment of innocence, and the circumstance that there was no additional submission of evidence to prove the facts charged of this case in the first instance court, the first instance decision that acquitted the Defendants is just and acceptable, and there is an error of misunderstanding of facts, as alleged by the prosecutor, as otherwise alleged by the prosecutor.

Therefore, the prosecutor's above assertion is without merit.

A. Defendants and D possess the authority to select a sales agent, respectively, and the Defendants and the witness T.