Nevertheless, since the defendant was supplied by ordering the processed steel plate from the victim immediately before the above company's default until the above company's default, the scope of fraud is recognized.

In addition, even though F applied for a payment order to E and served the above payment order to E on December 16, 2015, the Defendant transferred the vehicle, etc. recorded in the facts charged to J around January 2016, to E and the relationship between E and J, etc., the Defendant acquired the vehicle, etc. recorded in the facts charged by the Defendant in falsity.

must be viewed.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant on the ground that the above facts are not recognized, is erroneous by misunderstanding facts and affecting the judgment.

2. On the grounds indicated in its reasoning, the lower court, based on the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, acquired the amount equivalent to the price of goods supplied by the Defendant by deceiving the victim, by acquiring a processed steel plate through supply, on the sole basis of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, when examining transaction relation between E and the victim, business progress trends, financial status, and circumstances

It is difficult to recognize that the Defendant acquired the shares in the facts charged by falsity.

Considering that it cannot be readily concluded, the instant facts charged were acquitted.

Comprehensively taking account of the circumstances found by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below, the above judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error in the misapprehension of facts as alleged by the prosecutor.

3. The appeal of this case by the public prosecutor is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, since the appeal of this case is without merit.