The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, it is acknowledged that the Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant confirmed the removal of pine trees from the construction site of the main mountain complex of the main mountain complex of the main mountain complex of the main body of the appeal is not reliable. ② The term “former Special Contract for the Construction Project of the main industrial complex of the main body of the main body of the main body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the parties

In full view of the above circumstances, it is sufficiently recognized that the Defendant, even though there is no intention or ability to take out pine trees, by deceiving the victim, received KRW 50 million from the victim as the down payment for taking out pine trees, and acquired it by deceit.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court of first instance that acquitted the defendant is erroneous by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination:

A. In light of the facts and circumstances as stated in its reasoning, the first instance court rendered a not guilty verdict on the facts in this case on the ground that the facts in this case, such as the Defendant’s deception and the criminal intent to acquire deception, cannot be seen as having been proven without reasonable doubt.

B. The lower court’s judgment (i) the criminal intent of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of the crime of fraud, has to be determined by comprehensively taking account of the objective circumstances such as the Defendant’s financial history, environment, details of the crime, and the process of transaction before and after the crime, insofar as the Defendant does not make a confession. The criminal intent is not a conclusive intention, but a

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2007Do10416, Feb. 28, 2008; 2007Do8726, Aug. 21, 2008). Moreover, it is a subjective element of elements of crime.