사기
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. The decision of the court below which did not recognize that the defendant did not have the intent or ability to obtain certification of organic farming from the mushroom supplied or produced with C at the time when the defendant entered into a consulting contract with C is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts.
2. The lower court determined that the lower court determined that: ① (a) the operator of a small-scale farm producing mushroom supplied with mushroom land and was introduced by the Defendant with respect to the business of a small-scale farm producing mushroom from E farm, which is a supplier of mushroom land; (b) E farm was supplied with an organic farm through the Defendant, and entered into a consulting agreement with the Defendant to sell it through the authentication procedure; (c) the E farm was a party to supply the organic farm land to C; (d) the E farm was going to go through a dispute between the project entity and the private and criminal dispute; (d) Defendant C was waiting to hear the horses on the part of the E farm; and (c) it was difficult to view the Defendant’s intent to partially return the consulting fee to the Defendant at the end of 2017; and (d) it was difficult to view the Defendant’s business that did not enter into the instant agreement with the E farm as a matter of contract for the use of the certification procedure for the use of the organic farm in light of the following:
3. In light of the records of this case, the above judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and the prosecutor asserts in the judgment below.