The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. In the instant case, the gist of the grounds of appeal is as follows: (a) the Defendant sold the instant Do to the victim and received the full payment of the purchase price; (b) the Defendant is obligated to preserve the said Do until the victim received the said Do; and (c) such obligation constitutes another person’s business.

Nevertheless, the court below rendered a not guilty verdict on the facts charged in this case on the ground that the defendant is not in a position to manage another person's business. The court below erred by misapprehending legal principles, which affected the conclusion

2. Summary of the facts charged in this case and the judgment of the court below

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case was on August 1, 2013, the Defendant sold spawn in the Defendant’s spawn field located in D at the time of residence to the victim C, and the Defendant was obligated to preserve the said spawn until the victim received the said spawn.

Nevertheless, the Defendant violated his duties on September 5, 2013, and followed 150,000,000,000 won of the market value of the Defendant, and acquired the same amount of property profits and sustained the same amount of property damage to the victim.

B. The judgment of the court below is not sufficient to acknowledge that the defendant sold the instant chart to C, but in the case of real estate, the seller's duty to cooperate in the registration of the real estate is different from that of another person's business for the buyer's acquisition of ownership, and it is difficult to view that the seller's duty to preserve unfreshed eggs or to cooperate in the buyer's act of protecting or managing the buyer's property. Thus, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize that the defendant has a status to manage the victim's business in addition to his own business, which is the obligation to transfer Podo's property, separately, and