The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts: The statements made by the victim C and G reversed investigative agency and the statement made by the court below in the court below in relation to each fraud among the acquitted portion in the judgment of the court below are reliable, and according to this, there is sufficient evidence to prove the fact that the defendant acquired 10 million won from the victim C in the name of the purchase price of advertisement video vehicles and the fact that he acquired 18.4 million won in the aggregate from the victim G in the name of borrowed money, but there is an error of misunderstanding of facts in the judgment

B. Unreasonable sentencing: The sentencing of the lower court on the convicted portion (two months of imprisonment, one year of suspended sentence, one year of community service, etc.) is too unjustifiable even if the aforementioned acquitted portion is not found guilty, and thus, is unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) The summary of the facts charged is as follows: (a) the Defendant’s fraud against the victim C (a) decided to rent a heavy advertising image vehicle from H; (b) however, the Defendant, who did not have any method to provide rent, intended to obtain money from the victim C by deceiving the said vehicle at KRW 10 million as if it could be purchased.

On April 5, 2008, the Defendant made a false statement to the effect that “The Defendant purchased a medium-sized advertising vehicle from an advertising video company after purchasing it, and engaged in a vehicle advertising business,” with the victim C at the “J-owned office located in Hanam-si I” office. The Defendant made a false statement to the effect that “The Defendant would sell a medium-sized advertising vehicle at a price much below the market price.” The Defendant purchased a medium-sized advertising vehicle at a price of KRW 10 million.

However, in fact, since the above-mentioned advertising video vehicle has leased the above vehicle from H for at least 5 million won a month for two months, the defendant did not have any intent or ability to transfer the ownership of the above advertising video vehicle to H after the expiration of the term of lease.

As such, the Defendant deceivings the victim C, and deceivings it from the victim C, to the Agricultural Cooperative Account of H on April 5, 2008, 5 million won.