The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant acted with an enterprise that intended to purchase water purifiers to believe its business activities, such as giving them a date and time to make changes, but the Defendant did not have the right to purchase water purifiers from the enterprise and did not have the right to sell water purifiers.

In addition, there is no evidence to believe that the defendant carried out the actual water purifier business in China, and instead, it is recognized that he/she has consumed the money delivered by the injured party for personal consumption, such as living expenses.

Therefore, the Defendant received money through the Defendant’s act of having China believe that the Defendant would carry out or believed to carry out the water purifier sales business, although there is no intent or ability to carry out the water purifier sales business.

It shall be fully recognized.

On the other hand, the court below held that there was no relation between the Defendant’s deception and the victim’s disposal act, but the Defendant borrowed funds necessary for water purifier business to the victim and asked the victim to lend them, and so long as the victim delivered money, the relationship between the Defendant’s deception and the victim’s disposal

2. Determination

A. The lower court: (a) was aware of the circumstances that the victim and F knew that the Defendant was economically difficult; (b) provided the Defendant with a subsidy for the daily living cost while running the water purifier business in Japan; (c) the victim and F did not demand a specific business plan to the Defendant; and (d) lent money to the Defendant without establishing a detailed method of repayment or interest, etc.; (c) the Defendant actually established a legal entity in China for the water purifier business; and (d) the victim and F did not demand the Defendant to pay the repayment even if the repayment period agreed by the Defendant was due.