The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the prosecutor of the misunderstanding of the facts and the legal principles cited as the grounds for appeal. The misapprehension of the legal principles is based on the misapprehension of the legal principles on deception, etc., and the court of the original instance erred by misapprehending the legal principles on deception, thereby making it possible to make a mistake of facts, and

When the defendant received money from the damaged party, he/she transferred the passenger transport business license to the G K K in charge of the LAB (hereinafter referred to as the "K") to the high-speed tourism (hereinafter referred to as the "G high-speed tourism") and received money from the damaged party as stated in the facts charged in spite of the fact that it was impossible to transfer the passenger transport business license, which is the terms and conditions of the contract with the injured party, even though there were reasons making it impossible to transfer the passenger transport business license, which is the contents of the contract with

2. Determination

A. In light of the record, even if the result of the examination on R of a witness conducted in the trial at the request of a prosecutor is added, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor on the grounds of the reasons from No. 2 to No. 3 in the judgment of the court below was proved without a reasonable doubt that the defendant deceivings the victim.

It is difficult to see

The judgment of the court below that made is correct, and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as alleged by the public prosecutor.

B. According to the witness R’s statement at the trial court of the trial, the point at which the victim became aware of the receipt of the report on the transfer of passenger transport business licenses between K and G between K and high-speed, along with R, was issued the money on September 8, 2015.

On the other hand, according to the witness M's statement in the court of original instance, G high-speed can be recognized as the fact that he understood at the request of the defendant that the above transfer contract was rescinded within two weeks from the date of the transfer contract of passenger transport service license. Thus, M's statement in the court of original instance in M is the witness at the time.