In light of the fact that the Defendant, at the time of issuing a letter of guarantee for advance payment for the construction of reinforced concrete (hereinafter “instant construction”), which is a part of the E Hospital Construction Works from the victim association, had never been carried out at all at the time, and the purpose of the advance payment was clearly determined to secure wages and materials at the construction site of the instant construction site, the Defendant, not the instant construction site, spent the aforementioned advance payment for the purchase of fry house in another construction site or for recycling fy house in another construction site that D had been carried out at the construction site of the instant construction site, etc., the Defendant’s criminal intent is sufficiently recognized.

Judgment

For the reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court determined that there is no sufficient evidence to acknowledge the criminal intent of defraudation by the Defendant, on the ground that it is difficult to readily conclude that the Defendant, without the intention to use the advance payment in the instant work, deceiving the victim association without any intention to use it in the instant work, and thus, acquitted the Defendant.

According to the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below, the fact-finding and judgment by the court below is justified, and there is no illegality that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts as pointed out by the

Therefore, the prosecutor's argument of mistake is without merit.

Therefore, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act for lack of reason.