The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the summary of the grounds for appeal, the court below erred in the misunderstanding of facts, since the defendant deceivings the victim on each date and time stated in the facts charged, and acquired each money from the victim.

2. On September 2005, the facts charged of the instant case stated that “The Defendant would repay preferentially borrowed money when the construction cost is settled, as the business funds for the South Korean convenience are temporarily deficient,” to the victim D in a mutual influent restaurant in Ansan-dong C market.

However, the Defendant had already been liable for damages equivalent to KRW 200 million, and thus there was no intention or ability to repay money from others even if he borrowed money from others.

Nevertheless, the defendant deceivings the victim as above and acquired 10 million won from the seat.

② Around December 19, 2005, the Defendant made a false statement to the victim’s house of the said victim, “The Defendant: (a) had an accident to work in South Korea; and (b) has no money to go to the hospital; and (c) has no money to go to the hospital.”

However, the Defendant had already been liable for damages equivalent to KRW 200 million, and thus there was no intention or ability to repay money from others even if he borrowed money from others.

Nevertheless, the defendant deceivings the victim as above and, i.e., by receiving five million won from the seat, acquired it by fraud.

③ On March 20, 2006, the Defendant made a false statement to the above victim that “Although there is any money from the members who wish to operate the service, there may be only the members who want to engage in the service.” The Defendant borrowed money.”

However, the Defendant had already been liable for damages equivalent to KRW 200 million, and thus there was no intention or ability to repay money from others even if he borrowed money from others.

Nevertheless, it is not appropriate.