The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

The summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows: (a) there is no specific agreement on the allocation of earnings to be agreed if the transactional relationship between the defendant and the victim with an investment is in a partnership by the investment; and (b) in the absence of any profit from the operation of the factory, as alleged by the defendant, it is difficult to believe that the defendant prepared a loan certificate to pay 2.2 billion won to the victim on January 12, 2005, in the absence of any profit from the operation of the factory; (c) rather, it is difficult to say that the victim made an agreement to pay the price for salt straw machinery sets and the cost regardless of the situation of the operation of the factory; (d) the victim did not take part in the operation of the factory even once in the salt processing factory, and the victim did not receive payment after supplying the defendant with goods equivalent to KRW 1.70 million, the victim did not have any error of law by mistake on the premise that the victim made a statement on the credibility of the victim's investment in the business relationship with the defendant and the victim.

In light of the fact that the Defendant had no particular capabilities at the time of being supplied with dynasing machine sets and logs by the victim, and that the Defendant received sales proceeds of USD 5,000 to USD 30,000 (USD; hereinafter the same shall apply) from the seller from time to time after being supplied with the goods equivalent to KRW 1.7 billion from the victim, but the Defendant remitted only USD 110,000 to paid the victim with the dynasing machine sets and logs, etc., the Defendant could have known that he had the intention to obtain by fraud from the time of being supplied with the dynasing machine sets and logs by the victim, but the lower court

Judgment

The summary of the facts charged is that of the Daegu-gu around May 3, 2004.