The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts) is that the Defendant, who did not have the intent or ability to carry out the test as a bad credit standing, received the construction cost from the complainant, and both the Defendant’s deception and deception are recognized.

Nevertheless, the court below acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged in this case on the ground that the construction cost that the Defendant attempted to carry out artificial insemination works but received was stolen so that it could no longer proceed with construction works. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Summary of the facts charged in this case and the judgment of the court below

A. Around October 16, 2016, the Defendant stated that “Around October 16, 2016, the Victim E, located in Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, would transfer KRW 13 million to the account transfer of KRW 13 million from the starting fee and intermediate payment to the victim E, which would reduce the interior work of “F” in Suwon-gu, Suwon-gu.

However, even if the Defendant received the above money from the injured party, it was thought that it would be paid as the price for the materials related to the previous construction, and there was no intention or ability to execute the construction by receiving the above materials related to the interior construction, unlike the bad credit standing.

Ultimately, the Defendant, as seen above, by deceiving the victim, and thereby deceiving the victim from the victim, KRW 7 million around October 13, 2016, and KRW 6 million around October 18, 2016, respectively, by taking over KRW 13 million.

B. The lower court determined that the facts charged in the instant case were proven to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt solely on the evidence submitted by the prosecutor for the following reasons, although the Defendant appears to have been in a bad credit position at the time of the instant interior works.

It is difficult to see otherwise, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, and judged not guilty of the facts charged in this case.

① The Defendant is from May 2016 to “G” and “F”.