The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds of appeal stated that the Defendant agreed to sell the instant cosmetics to E and pay the sales proceeds of the instant cosmetics to E, in receipt of the instant cosmetics (F Cosmetics 30 Byung) from E.

However, the Defendant transferred the instant cosmetics to G without selling them to others.

The Defendant asserts that, on the grounds that he transferred the instant cosmetics to G, G promised to sell the instant cosmetics instead of the cosmetics.

However, G did not promise to sell the instant cosmetics instead of the instant cosmetics.

In other words, whether the Defendant transferred the instant cosmetics to G in order to pay personal debts to his own G.

G was promised to sell the instant cosmetics instead of the instant cosmetics, not to transfer the instant cosmetics to G.

Thus, the defendant had no intent to sell the cosmetic of this case to pay the sales proceeds to E. Thus, the defendant's intent to deception is recognized and a crime of fraud is established.

2. The judgment defendant delivered the instant cosmetics to G in order to pay personal debts to his own G.

In order to recognize, it should be recognized that the defendant was responsible for G.

However, in light of the following circumstances revealed by the record, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize that the defendant was liable for the obligation to G, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no error of mistake as to the facts alleged by the prosecutor, and the prosecutor's assertion is not accepted

A. G had lent KRW 50 million to the Defendant in an investigative agency

On the other hand, the court of the court below stated that the defendant did not pay and receive the cosmetics purchased by the defendant.