The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the fact that the defendant, in substance, manages the construction site, enters into a construction contract with the victims, or at least with G, the actual operator of B, and entered into a construction contract with the victims, thereby deceiving the victims by entering into a construction contract.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, as it rendered a not guilty verdict on the facts charged.

2. Summary of the facts charged in this case and the judgment of the court below

A. The summary of the facts charged of the instant case, around February 17, 2016, the Defendant, under a business agreement with B (hereinafter “B”), was managing the construction site of the “Land Construction among E-New Construction Works” (hereinafter “instant construction project”) on the land outside Daegu Suwon-gu, and two parcels of land supplied by C (hereinafter “C”) under a business agreement with B (hereinafter “B”), and concluded that the Defendant would pay the victim F rent from March 3, 2016 to the completion of the construction site of the instant construction project, stating that the Defendant would pay the Plaintiff F the rent when he leases the air compression machine from March 3, 2016 to the completion of the construction.

However, in fact, the Defendant did not use 2.4 million won out of the progress payment as the construction cost and did not intend to use 2.4 million won out of the progress payment for personal purposes at the construction site to use 6.2 million won as the construction cost, which the Defendant received from the prime contractor C, as the construction site, and thus, the instant construction project was anticipated to be proper, and even if the air compresseder was leased from the victim, there was no intention or ability to pay rent of 12,100,000 won to the victim.

As above, the Defendant: (a) by deceiving the victim; (b) did not pay rent for the lease of air compressed machines during the said period; and (c) obtained pecuniary benefits equivalent to KRW 12,100,000 from the victim.

In addition, the defendant from February 28, 2016.