In light of the fact that the defendant has consistently stated that the provisional attachment was cancelled in trust and consistent manner, and according to the victim I's statement, part of the victim F's statement and record, it would be sufficient that the defendant will pay back to the victims when he has cancelled the seizure and provisional attachment.

In full view of the fact that the Defendant was aware of the fact that he did not pay the victims even if he received the payment from H after he agreed to repay with the victims, the Defendant would have ordered the victims to pay the payment upon the cancellation of seizure and provisional seizure between January 2, 2017 and February 2017.

It is recognized that the victims have acquired financial benefits by requiring the victims to cancel the seizure and provisional seizure.

2. Determination

A. The lower court’s judgment cannot be readily concluded that the Defendant’s act of deceiving F, I, and F, and I’s act of releasing attachment and provisional attachment on February 20, 2017, was a mistake caused by the Defendant’s deception, and the remainder of the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor alone proves that the instant facts charged was proven.

It is difficult to see otherwise, and not guilty on the ground that there is no evidence to acknowledge it.

B. In light of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the reasoning of the court below, the above judgment of the court below is justified, and the prosecutor's assertion that the court below erred by mistake of facts is without merit.

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.