The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The prosecutor of the progress of the lawsuit brought a public prosecution against the defendant on August 1, 2002 and the fraud on September 11, 2002. The court below acquitted the defendant on the ground that the entire facts charged of this case constituted a case where there is no proof of crime.

Therefore, the prosecutor appealed to the whole judgment of the court below on the ground of mistake of facts, and the court prior to remanded only part of the prosecutor's assertion of mistake of facts which was accepted on August 11, 2002, and reversed part of the judgment of the court below on the fraud on August 11, 2002, and sentenced a fine of one million won to the defendant and dismissed the remainder of the prosecutor's appeal.

Therefore, only the Defendant appealed on the ground of mistake of facts as to the fraud of August 11, 2002, which was the guilty part of the judgment prior to remand. The Supreme Court accepted the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts, and reversed the conviction part of the judgment prior to remand and remanded it to the court of first instance.

2. The prosecutor's appeal of Sep. 11, 2002, which was rendered by the court below not guilty in the scope of the trial of this Court and dismissed in the trial before remand, became final and conclusive since the prosecutor's appeal was not filed a final appeal. As such, the part for which innocence was final and conclusive is excluded from the scope of the trial of this court.

3. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor of the gist of the grounds for appeal, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact that the Defendant was aware of the fact of deceiving the victim and deceiving the victim.

4. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant, around August 2002, bears the obligation of approximately KRW 30 million to KRW 40 million, while he did not intend or have the ability to repay the principal and interest, even though he did not borrow money from the victim due to the absence of any special property. On August 11, 2002, the Defendant made a false statement that “if the Defendant borrowed KRW 20 million to the victim, he would make the principal and interest repaid without the molding it,” and it is only KRW 20 million from the victim on the job.