The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal - Fact misunderstanding or misunderstanding of legal principles

A. In full view of the judgment on I, I, and E’s statements, forged checks and copies of passbooks, flow of damaged funds, etc., the defendant can be recognized that the defendant, in collusion with I, did not have any entity, or by using a forged check or copy of passbook to the victim E by means of a false statement as if he/she would have prepared corporate acquisition funds, he/she acquired money under the pretext of brokerage of acquired funds.

B. Moreover, the fact that the Defendant, through the statement of I and the victim and the flow of damaged funds, obtained money from the victim L under the pretext of an agreement to borrow acquired money without the intent or ability to accept the company.

(c)

In particular, in light of various circumstances, such as the relationship between I and the defendant, and the flow of the money paid by I from the injured party, I and the defendant are also recognized.

(d)

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which acquitted all of the facts charged of this case is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts or legal principles.

2. In full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the facts charged in this case are proven to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt.

It is difficult to see this conclusion, and there is no error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles.

It is proved that there is no reasonable doubt as to the facts charged of this case.

The reasons why it is difficult to view are as stated in the judgment of the court below except for the following additional matters.

A. The summary of this part of the facts charged is that “the defendant conspireds with I to arrange the lending of the company acquisition fund to the victim, without any intention or ability to act as a broker for the lending of the company acquisition fund, by deceiving the victim and receiving KRW 217 million as a broker for the acquisition fund, thereby deceiving the victim.”

2) The lower court duly adopted and investigated.