The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor as to the gist of the grounds for appeal, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the facts charged in this case, even though the defendant was found to have taken over the proceeds of sale of cosmetics equivalent to the sum of KRW 41,480,00 as stated in the facts charged of this case with the total of KRW 26,506,517 from the victim.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged in this case is that the Defendant is a person who is operating limited liability D & C in Seocho-gu, Seocho-gu, China.

(1) On September 2016, the Defendant stated that “Around September 10, 2016, at the GG office operated by the victim FF in Songpa-gu Seoul E-building, the Defendant would operate H in China with a direct sanitary license within five months for exporting cosmetics to China regardless of the grick problem. It may be resolved if there is a grickness in China, and the principal would be immediately returned if there is no sanitary license by March 10, 2017.”

However, in fact, the defendant was in a position to request I in China because he was not capable of acting as a direct agent for the permission for the registration of the sanitation, and there was no intention or ability to obtain the permission for the sanitation within the above period because he did not request I to perform the business in a separate manner and the defendant did not pay I the expenses even though he did not request I to perform the business in a separate manner.

As above, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, received 41,480,000 won, including the sum of 27,880,000 won around October 17, 2016 and 13,60,000 won around November 25, 2016, from the victim under the name of the Defendant’s wife, to the Korean Telecommunication Bank Account in the name of the Defendant’s wife.

(ii).