The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. According to the misunderstanding of facts (as to the part not guilty in the judgment of the court below), G and H’s statements, the re-contract was an unsatisfying or impossible situation, and the Defendants said to the effect that it would be possible to re-contract to the victims even if the re-contract was unsatisfy or impossible circumstances, which appears to fall under deception in the crime of fraud, and the victims would have been likely to not give the Defendant premium and not take over the right to rent if they knew of the unsatisfy or impossible fact, and Defendant B received 3 million won from the victim D around that time, and the Defendants did not return the premium of KRW 57 million to the victims up to that time. However, the court below acquitted the victims of this part of the charges, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence (one million won of a fine) imposed by the lower court on Defendant B is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Examining the evidence of this case as to the assertion of mistake of facts in detail in light of the records, the lower court, based on its stated reasoning, concluded the instant premium agreement with the victims even though the Defendants were to not enter into an extension contract after January 9, 2015 from the building owner G, and did not exceed the permissible scope in light of social norms.

It is difficult to recognize that the Defendants had the intent to commit fraud, and the Defendants did not have the ability or intent to return the premium when the Defendants concluded an agreement on the premium and received the premium.

It is also deemed that there was an intentional intent on this point.