The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. In full view of the evidence of the grounds for appeal, the court below erred in the misapprehension of facts on the ground that the act of deception is not recognized, although the defendant did not intend to use the money as a sales agency deposit, and even if he did not have the intent or ability to repay the money within one month even after borrowing the money from the victim, he could recognize the fact that the FF would be able to make a big profit if he borrowed money as a sales agency deposit, and the fact that the money

2. Determination

A. In the court below's decision, the defendant received money from the victim E by requesting the victim E to explain the contents of the contract and to use the money as a loan and a necessary expense, and then, most of the above money as explained by the victim was paid to I as explained by the victim. Thus, the defendant argued that he did not deceiving the victim.

B. The lower court, based on the following circumstances: K Chairperson L, the Defendant, and E, a sales executor who signed a sales agency contract with the Defendant, invested in the Jriart project together with the Jriart project, N, I’s friendship with the Do and Jriart project, and the Defendant received a receipt of a loan after receiving money from the victim; the Defendant filed a criminal complaint with the Defendant, who was sentenced to imprisonment with labor for one year and six months (Seoul Central District Court 2015No2103), and the Supreme Court of Appeals (No. 2015Do19195) (No. 200 million won as stated in the facts charged in the instant case on June 16, 2008 and June 25, 2008). The victim did not receive a refund under the same name and again received a refund.