The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor as to the gist of the grounds for appeal, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, even though the defendant could have acknowledged the fact that the defendant acquired the investment money from the complainant without the intention or ability to purchase D and E (hereinafter collectively collectively referred to as the “instant land”).

2. Determination

A. The relevant legal doctrine is a crime established by deceiving another person to make a mistake by inducing a dispositive act and thereby receiving property or pecuniary gain by inducing a dispositive act. The essence of fraud is to acquire property or pecuniary gain by deception.

Since the crime of fraud is established when the property right, which is the benefit and protection of the law, is violated, it should be the deception of the other party with the intent to commit the crime of fraud or fraud.

The intent of the criminal intent to acquire unlawful acquisition or to acquire through deception, which is a subjective constituent element of fraud, has to be determined by comprehensively taking account of the objective circumstances, such as the Defendant’s financial history, environment, details of the crime, and the process of performing transactions before and after the crime unless the Defendant confessions (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Do10570, Dec. 27, 2019). In particular, the determination of the establishment of fraud through deception in a joint project agreement should be based on whether the Defendant had the intent to acquire investment, etc. from the victim by making a false statement as if he/she did not have the intent or ability to conduct a joint project,

At this time, the court shall make a decision by comprehensively taking into account the contents of the joint project contract, the process of conclusion, the process of execution of the contract,

(See Supreme Court Decision 2015Do10570 Decided December 27, 2019, supra). B.

Judgment

The judgment of the court below is '2.2. Judgment of the court below'.