The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The victims of the gist of the grounds for appeal did not enter into a contract with the defendant and did not pay the money if they knew that there are two or more cooperatives promotion committees in the field of this case. Therefore, the Defendant’s failure to notify the victims of the fact that there are two cooperatives promotion committees in the field of this case constitutes deception.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant on the ground that it is not enough to recognize the fact that the defendant had the criminal intent of deceiving the victims, is erroneous in mistake of facts.

2. The lower court rendered a not-guilty verdict on the instant facts charged while sufficiently explaining the grounds for its determination.

In light of the following circumstances as stated in the lower court’s reasoning, the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, witness H, G, and D, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone cannot be deemed to have been proven to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt as to the facts charged. Therefore, the lower court did not err in matters of mistake of facts, contrary to the assertion by the public prosecutor, in so determining, contrary to the allegation by the public prosecutor.

Therefore, the prosecutor's argument of mistake is without merit.

1) The witness V of the lower court stated that “The promotional officer was opened on November 2016, the public relations officer was aware of the fact that two cooperatives were established prior to the public relations center construction works, and D was also aware of the fact that there was two cooperatives promotion committee. After that, the Defendant requested that the business be promptly carried out. However, even if the progress was requested to the Defendant, it did not rapidly proceed and its own life was difficult, and thus, it terminated the contract at around 2017 and was refunded the investment money. At that time, D was asked that it will have to go further.” 2) The witness D of the lower court stated that “D knew that the partnership promotion committee was two persons around November 2016, 2016, but it was not a regular contract, and the amount invested.”