All appeals filed by the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.

1. According to the summary of the grounds for appeal - the misconception of facts, the Defendants, despite being aware that each of the instant bills was a “consumpted bill”, may recognize the fact that the Defendants were false and received the discount of the bill by the victim.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendants on the grounds that the Defendants could fully recognize the intent of deception and deception.

2. The lower court determined that the Defendants could not have known that each of the bills and checks (hereinafter “each of the bills, etc.”) recorded in the separate sheet of crime did not have any possibility of settlement in a normal manner, solely with the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, while explaining the particulars of the instant case in detail.

In light of the circumstances indicated by the lower court based on the above judgment, and the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, the lower court’s determination that it is difficult to recognize that the Defendants, despite being aware of the fact that each of the instant bills, etc. was a financing bill and there was no possibility of settlement, deceiving the victim intentionally by deception is justifiable. In so doing, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine as pointed out by

Therefore, prosecutor's assertion is not accepted.

A. The victims have been engaged in the transaction of discount of bills several times from Defendant B in addition to each of the instant bills, etc., and both of these bills have been settled normally.

B. Before delivering to the victim the bill No. 1 in the annexed list of crimes, Defendant B confirmed whether the bill was a highly advanced bill in which the above bill was settled normally. Defendant A entered into a blasting contract with Defendant D, and our company (State N) entered into the blasting contract with Defendant D, and our company entered into that contract with Defendant D.