The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

In light of the circumstances below the summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts), the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendant on the facts charged of this case.

① Taking into account the fact that the victim’s statement is consistent and reliable, ② the point from August 1, 2015 to July 31, 2015 when the victim was engaged in delivery business, and the time when the Defendant collected Orabane due to the lack of delivery business from August 1, 2015, ③ it is unclear as to whether the victim had paid the leased fee in cash to the Defendant, ③ it is unclear whether the victim had expressed his/her intention to cancel the lease contract, ④ it is unclear whether the Defendant expressed his/her intention to cancel the lease contract, ④ because the victim had keys, and the Defendant appears to have collected Orabane without the victim’s consent, the lower court found the Defendant not guilty by misapprehending the fact.

The summary of the facts charged in this case is as follows: (a) the Defendant: (b) leased the Defendant’s employees E in the name of the victim, who operated the delivery agency around November 26, 2014; (c) leased the Defendant’s six Oral part, such as F, G, H, I, J, and K, under the name of the Defendant’s employees E; and (d) entered into a contract for the supply of the Defendant’s lease with the victim with the said KRW 200,000,000,000,000 for each 26th of each month, with the said KRW 2,000,000,000,000 for each 26th of the 26th of the 200,000 won deposit from the victim; and (c) received the said KRW 6,000 from the victim, but received the said KRW 1,000 from the victim around April 2015.

In this regard, the Defendant received only KRW 500,000 out of KRW 1 million from the victim of the damage on July 2015 on June 6, 2015, and paid the remainder of KRW 500,000 to the first policeman on August 2015.