The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The decision of the court below which acquitted the victim of the charges of this case, despite the establishment of fraud, is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, since the defendant deceivings the victim, registered the business under the name of the victim, and did not pay the value-added tax, etc., and thereby the victim bears the

2. On December 13, 2013, the prosecutor conducted an ex officio determination on the facts charged in the instant case, “The defendant made a false statement to the effect that “The defendant would make a false statement to the effect that he would make a woman-friendly victim B of the defendant’s female job offering with the name of the business operator in order to operate the cleaning service company at home, and deliver a camera to him,”” among the facts charged in the instant case, “The defendant made a false statement to the effect that “The defendant would make a false statement to the effect that he would make a false statement to the effect that he would make a false statement to the effect that he would make a false statement to the effect that he would operate the cleaning service company at home, and that it would make a false statement to the effect that the defendant would make a false statement to the effect that he would make a false statement to the effect that he would make a false statement to the effect that he would make a cleaning service provider at home,” and that it is no longer subject to the court’s permission for modification of an amendment by making it possible to do so.”

3. Accordingly, the court below's decision is reversed in accordance with Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the prosecutor's argument, and it is again decided as follows after oral argument.

[Grounds for multi-use Judgment]

1. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant, around December 13, 2013, lent the name of the proprietor to the Defendant’s female-friendly victim B in the Gwangju-dong-gu in order to operate the cleaning service provider. However, if the Defendant borrowed the name of the proprietor, then it does not cause any damage to the party.