as such, there was no actual ability to proceed with the business.

The defendant used most of the 50 million won, excluding the 10 million won out of the 50 million won deposited by the complainant C as personal debt repayment and living expenses.

If all of these facts are notified to the complainants, the complainants did not make an investment, and the defendant's statement that if an investment is made only three months, it would make a PF loan and make it possible to sell the proceeds after the establishment of the set is false, and therefore a crime of fraud is established.

2. In full view of the various facts and circumstances described in the judgment, the court below found the Defendant not guilty on the ground that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor in this case alone is insufficient to recognize the fact that the Defendant, when receiving the money in this case, had the criminal intent of deceiving the complainant and deceiving the complainant with the criminal intent of deceiving the complainant at the time of receiving the money in this case, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

Examining the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below, the above determination by the court below is just and acceptable, and there is an error of law by misunderstanding the facts.

It does not seem that it does not appear.

Therefore, the prosecutor's above assertion is not accepted.

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.