The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts) According to the contract under a genuine contract concluded between the Defendant, E (hereinafter “E”) and the Defendant Company G (hereinafter “G”), the instant equipment cost is included in the scope of fairness under the contract, and G was responsible for paying the equipment cost because the agreed construction cost was fully paid to E. However, at the time of entering into the contract with the victims, the Defendant, who committed the contract with the Defendant, is in a situation in which it is difficult to expect the profits from the exercise in question at the time of entering into the contract with the victims, is recognized to have the criminal intent by deception and the criminal act of deception.

2. Examining the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below in light of the records, a thorough examination of the records is based on the determination of evidence as stated in the judgment of the court below. (1) The sum of equipment costs is the amount unforeseeable in G; (2) the contract amount of KRW 2,05,300,000,000, which is entered into between G and E, is inconsistent with the actual cost settlement method; and (3) the contract amount of KRW 3,934,00,000 is not included in the contract amount of construction work; and (4) there is no data to reject the authenticity of the contract; and (3) the equipment cost is not included in the scope of E’s fair scope or is planned to be settled after the estimation of the proceeds from the exercise of the right to use the equipment; and (4) The contract for construction work is concluded by the actual cost settlement method.

In light of the above, the evidence of this case alone recognized that the defendant could not pay the equipment costs of this case ultimately and, even if he received the equipment costs of this case from G, he did not have the intent and ability to pay the equipment costs of this case to the equipment company.

On the grounds that it is difficult to conclude the facts charged in this case, the protocol that judged the innocence is just and acceptable, and new evidence corresponding to the facts charged in this case is presented in the trial.