The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. In light of the summary of the grounds for appeal: (a) the victim B and G’s statement; and (b) the Defendant, even after April 20, 2016, obtained money from the victim on three occasions after the rescission of the PM service contract for the apartment housing of the Hanan District Housing Association; and (c) there was no mentioning the rescission of the contract in the process; and (d) the Defendant continued to have been in the first instance trial due to the fraud at the time of the instant case; and (c) the contents of the said fraudulent act are similar to the instant case, the Defendant may be deemed to have obtained money by deceiving the victim without intent or ability to engage in the business after obtaining money from

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant on the charge of fraud.

2. The prosecutor of the judgment is at the trial below:

As stated in paragraph (1), an application for changes in indictment was filed, and this court permitted it, and the subject of the adjudication was changed.

Therefore, the prosecutor's assertion of misunderstanding of facts on this part will be examined on the premise that the above facts charged were modified.

In March 2016, the summary of the changed facts charged, the Defendant proposed that the victim B be awarded a contract for the model house construction of the apartment house of the Hancheon-gu District Housing Association at the office located in the Gangnam-gu Seoul, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, to get the victim B to enter into a contract for the construction of the apartment house of the Hancheon-gu District Housing Association. The Defendant decided that the mother in Japan is a major shareholder of the S Bank, and the above construction implementer will carry out the construction by lending KRW 8 billion to the above PM services and the recruitment of members of the apartment association and the sale by proxy. If he/she lends money for the use of money, such as business expenses, he/she would have the said construction implementer enter into a contract

However, the facts are that the defendant was indicted for a separate crime of fraud and was in office at that time, and there was no other property, and there was no room to raise funds of KRW 8 billion to the above construction implementer.