The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal did not directly receive the instant money from the victims, but the Defendant ordered the company to demand money from the company due to the fear of financing due to provisional attachment through G, which is the wife, and G prepared two times a written confirmation to the effect that it borrowed the instant money under the pretext of the provisional attachment preservation order by the F and H, etc. of D Co., Ltd. for the victims through the F and H.

As such, although the defendant knew that the amount of this case was paid as a provisional seizure deposit, he used it for personal reconstruction construction cost, and there was a criminal intent to acquire by deception the defendant.

must be viewed.

2. The prosecutor of the indictment to change the indictment shall set forth the following 3-mentioned facts charged on the premise that the amount of this case is the amount of money to be used as provisional seizure deposit money or additional collection charges, which has been specified and entrusted.

B. (1) As mentioned in paragraph (1), an application for amendment to a bill of amendment was filed with a selective modification of the contents of the amendment, and this court permitted it, thereby becoming subject to the trial on the alternative charge. We examine all the existing charges that were subject to the trial of the court below before the amendment and the facts alternatively changed.

3. Determination

A. According to the records of this case as to the prosecutor's assertion of mistake of facts as to the previous facts charged, the court below held that the court below did not have reasonable doubt as to the defendant's fraud and the proof of deception on the grounds of its stated reasoning.

Since it is reasonable to determine that the prosecutor’s assertion is not reasonable, the prosecutor’s assertion is without merit.

B. (1) Judgment on the facts charged alternatively changed (1) The summary of the factory room served as the head of the civil engineering project headquarters of D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”) from December 2, 2007 to December 2009.

When the defendant works as the head of the civil engineering project headquarters as above, he will pay the construction cost to D subcontractor businesses.