The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor, although the court below fully acknowledged the facts charged, it was erroneous in the judgment below which affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts.

2. The summary of the facts charged of the instant case [Reference Facts] Defendant was aware of his knowledge of the first police officer on May 201, 201

D and E, together with G, the actual operator of the F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “F”), made a business agreement with G to make profits by developing the said land as a factory site after purchasing the F-owned H and three parcels of land (hereinafter “instant land”). On May 201, G and the instant land were purchased at KRW 370,000,000 for KRW 3770,000 (to take over the loans of Stim Mutual Savings Bank, and to register D as the representative of the said company after accepting the said corporation, and the Defendant paid KRW 12,00,000,000 from the above purchase price, and the remainder of the purchase price was an agreement to obtain additional loans from bond business operators (one person, “I”) and not to pay the down payment for the said G under the above provisional registration in the name of the Seoul Special Self-Governing Party (hereinafter “instant implementation agreement”), and the Defendant prepared for the said contract to purchase the said land under the name of the said Seoul Special Self-Governing Party’s name (hereinafter “B”).

Since May 201, the Defendant terminated the instant implementation agreement on the grounds that a loan from a bond business operator was nonexistent and the remaining sales amount was not paid, and thus, the said contract is KRW 100 million from G.