A. In the case of fraud 2016 High Order 3014, which acquitted the Defendant at the lower court’s lower court, the victim L’s statement is consistent that the Defendant suffered from fraud by deceiving the Defendant about occupation, history, and intention or ability to change, etc., and accords with X’s statement.

Nevertheless, the court below rejected the credibility of the victim L's statement and rendered a not-guilty verdict on this part of the facts charged, and there is an error of law due to mistake in the facts.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the circumstances stated by the lower court in the judgment of not guilty of this part of the facts charged, namely, the background leading up to the education of the Defendant and L, L’s motive for investment, the Defendant’s motive for liability against the Defendant, and the circumstances leading up to the preparation of a record, it is difficult to believe that L’s statement as to whether there was a deception by the Defendant, was omitted due to the said deception, or whether L’s act of disposal of property was caused by mistake.

Only a statement of L alone by deceiving L to acquire the property by deceiving L.

It can not be readily determined, and the same shall also apply to cases where X’s statements are considered.

The judgment of the court below that acquitted the facts charged is just and acceptable, and the prosecutor's assertion of mistake is not accepted.

B. There is no significant change in circumstances to consider the sentencing of the defendant after the judgment of the court below regarding the unfair argument of sentencing.

In light of all the circumstances asserted by the prosecutor on the grounds of appeal, the lower court’s sentence against the Defendant cannot be deemed as unreasonable, even if it is deemed that the lower court’s sentence is unjustifiable, in light of all the circumstances asserted by the prosecutor on the grounds of appeal.

Therefore, the prosecutor's improper assertion of sentencing is not accepted.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so ordered as per Disposition.