2. As to the facts charged of this case, the lower court found the Defendant not guilty on the ground that it is insufficient to recognize the Defendant’s criminal intent by deception, in light of the following: (a) the Defendant and the victim suspended transactions from the end of 2004 to the end of 2010 on the grounds that the Defendant had been supplied with aggregate; (b) the Defendant and the victim continued transactions from the end of 2010 to January 2012 on the grounds that the payment of the price was partially made; (c) the victim appears to have supplied the goods under the status of being aware of the Defendant’s business size, profit, payment ability, etc.; and (d) when comparing the Defendant’s assets and liabilities at the time of being supplied with aggregate from the victim, it cannot be readily

Examining the judgment of the court below closely by comparing it with the evidence records, the judgment of the court below is acceptable, and there is no violation of law of mistake of facts.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.