The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the facts charged in fraud, even though the defendant deceivings the victim E to the effect that "the defendant will accept a payment guarantee letter from the head of the G headquarters" and deceivings the victim E with the 10 million won from the victim, there is no proof of the crime.

2. Determination

A. On June 2018, the Defendant stated that “The Victim E, who sought funds related to the acquisition of Roon in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D, from a restaurant located in Jung-gu, Seoul, Seoul, would know the head of G headquarters well. The Defendant would receive a payment guarantee of KRW 20 billion in G’s name by paying the cost to the head of G headquarters via the head of G via the State F.”

However, even if the defendant receives money from the victim, he did not have any intention or ability to use it as a rain fund or to obtain a payment guarantee certificate.

The defendant is against the victim of the same damage.

6. 21. The amount of KRW 10 million was remitted to the H account (I) in the name of the Defendant for the purpose of the street funds.

B. Specific determination 1) In a criminal trial, criminal facts ought to be recognized as strict evidence having probative value to the extent that a judge has no reasonable doubt. Thus, in a case where a prosecutor fails to prove to the extent that he/she has a sufficient conviction, even if there are circumstances, such as the defendant’s assertion or defense contradictory or uncomfortable dismissal, and the suspicion of guilt should be determined in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and duly examined by the court below (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Do231, Jun. 28, 2012). In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the fact that the defendant received KRW 10 million from E is recognized, but the evidence submitted by the prosecutor including the E’s statement alone, thereby deceiving the defendant to accept a payment guarantee certificate.