The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. In full view of the following facts: (a) the victim of the grounds for appeal stated to the effect that “the construction of a charnel house around June 2009 and the construction of a stone stuff and a neglect building on or around October 2010 separates each of the following works; (b) the above two works have been settled in full; (c) the construction cost is presumed useful for personal purposes due to the economic circumstances of the defendant; and (d) the defendant fails to present data on the details of the construction; and (e) the court below acquitted the defendant of the facts charged in the instant case even if the defendant was recognized as the criminal of defraudation, in violation of the rules of evidence, the court below acquitted the defendant of the facts charged.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. The lower court determined as follows, based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court: (a) the Defendant: (i) contracted to install a charnel cemetery from around June 2009 to contracted to perform construction works; (ii) the Defendant agreed to perform additional installation works on the bottom of the charnel cemetery with the victim on December 2, 2010, and agreed to do so together with the installation works on the installation works on the joint with sperm; (iii) it is difficult to deem that the Defendant entered into a contract by dividing the project into additional storage works on the said sperm and the construction works; and (ii) the construction cost that the victim paid to the Defendant with respect to the installation works on the said sperm and his neglect was paid from around December 2, 201 to May 6, 201; (b) the payment period was equal to the construction cost paid from around December 2, 201 to November 201; and (iii) the Defendant actually contracted to install the said works from around June 20, 2009 to around the entire project cost.