The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. In full view of the Defendant’s ability to repay and intent to repay on October 20, 2016, the judgment of the court below which did not recognize the Defendant’s intentional acquisition, but did not recognize it, is erroneous in the misapprehension of the facts.

2. On the grounds indicated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that the Defendant did not have any intent or ability to pay the transport cost when the Defendant requested the victim to carry out food materials transport business.

It is difficult to conclude it.

In light of this, the lower court acquitted this part of the charges.

In full view of the following circumstances found by the lower court and the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, namely, E jointly operated with C concluded a supply contract with the F prison under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Justice on a three-month basis, E entered into a divided supply contract between November 2016 and January 2017, and entered into a contract with the victim for the transportation of the food, and the Defendant appears to have been able to pay transport charges to the Defendant as the price for the above supply contract, and the victim actually paid transport charges, and the victim was believed to have entered into a divided supply contract with the Defendant on November 2016 to January 2017, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is acceptable, and there is no violation of law by mistake as alleged by the prosecutor.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the appeal is without merit.