The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal ① The victim E started the construction by stating that “the defendant was snick about the completion of the PF lending work, and changed work on credit.”

In light of the statements of K, I, and G consistently stated the following: (a) it is evident that the Defendant expressed to the surrounding person that the PF loan was finalized even if the PF loan was not finalized prior to the conclusion of the instant construction contract with the victim; (c) it is recognized that the Defendant deceivingd the victim of the damage to the D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “Co., Ltd.”) from December 13, 2017 to February 28, 2018, as if the Defendant paid the total amount of KRW 2790 million from February 13, 2017 to February 28, 2018; and (b) written the transaction appearance of the method of returning it again. In light of the above, it is reasonable to deem that the PF loan was impossible to do so due to the self-sufficiency situation operated by the Defendant regardless of D’s ability or ability to perform construction works.

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant not guilty, and there is a violation of law by mistake of facts.

2. Determination

A. The lower court’s determination is difficult to believe that: (a) in light of the victim’s relevant industry’s experience or experience, it was concluded without clearly stipulating the payment date or payment method for a large-scale construction contract, the victim’s total construction cost of which reaches KRW 10.6 billion, without paying the advance payment; and (b) it did not confirm at all the terms and conditions or methods of the loan, which serve as the main means of payment for the construction cost, as the principal means of payment, while concluding the large-scale construction contract with which the victim’s total construction cost reaches KRW 10.6 billion in advance; and (c) the Defendant

H and hot spring water, underground water.