2. In full view of the circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated, the lower court determined that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone cannot be deemed as having proved the Defendant’s criminal intent of deception or deception.

On the other hand, the victim stated from the investigative agency to the effect that "the defendant was able to borrow money without receiving any loan from the defendant without any specific agreement on the interest or maturity for payment because he was aware that it is necessary to pay money for business from the defendant, and he was able to borrow money from the defendant after the lapse of several months, and invested the above money in the game business and return money to the defendant if he was well in the game business." Even according to the victim's statement, even if following the victim's statement, it is difficult to see that the defendant received money by specifically deceiving the victim about the purpose of use, maturity for payment, interest, repayment ability, etc., and even if the defendant actually invested money in the game business and actually carried out considerable part of the business, it is difficult to view that the criminal intent of the defendant's deception is proven to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt for deliberation by considering the victim's statement or indirect facts.

In light of the circumstances described above, the court below's finding the Defendant not guilty of the facts charged in this case on the grounds as stated in its reasoning is just and acceptable, and there is no error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding facts as pointed out by the prosecutor in the judgment of the court below.

3. If so, the prosecutor's appeal is without merit.