2. Determination

A. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the prosecutor’s evidence, i.e., even if the defendant’s statement was based on the defendant’s own statement, the amount equivalent to the investment funds received from the victims were used for personal purposes, and the defendant did not have any experience in the collection of earth and rocks prior to the instant case (i.e., 820 pages), and the defendant was not actually engaged in the collection of earth and rocks from December 11, 2008 to the time of acquisition of Qu from December 11, 2008, when the construction contract was entered into for the collection of earth and rocks between the defendant, Qu Co., Ltd., the defendant received investment from the victims even though the defendant did not actually engage in the collection of earth and rocks even after the fact that most of the funds received from the victims were consumed, as

B. However, in full view of the following circumstances as well as the facts and circumstances properly pointed out by the lower court, which are revealed by records and the instant pleadings, the above A.

The circumstances mentioned in the paragraph and the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone are insufficient to recognize that the defendant had committed a deception to the victims as stated in the facts charged, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that issued such a conclusion is just and acceptable, and there is no error of law by mistake of facts as alleged by the public prosecutor.

① The contents of the act of deception stated in the facts charged in the instant case are discussed in the F Industrial Complex at the soil creation site.