The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts) is that the Defendant actually operated the instant marina, and the Defendant, on February 2, 2013, made telephone conversations with the J, the husband of the victim, to operate the instant marina directly.

In light of the fact that the Defendant was provided with goods from the injured party on April 2013 by stating that it was “assumed and added with goods,” and that the instant marina was the enemy at the time, it can be recognized the fact that the Defendant was provided with goods equivalent to the amount stated in the facts charged by deceiving the injured party without the ability to repay.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case is erroneous.

2. Determination 1) The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is a person who operated D (the name of the business operator: E) in Pyeongtaek-si from December 7, 2012 to July 2013, 2013.

On December 20, 2012, the Defendant made a false statement to the Victim F to pay the price if he/she delivers raw materials to the Victim F.

However, there was no intention or ability to pay the price in time, even if the article was delivered by the injured party, because there was no particular property at the time, and because there was a situation where the operation of the art was difficult to the extent of delinquency in public charges and taxes.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, as seen above, received goods equivalent to KRW 5,197,772 on the same day from the injured party and received goods from the injured party, and acquired the goods in total amount of KRW 10,342,514 through nine times from the above day to April 9, 2013, as shown in the list of crimes attached to the lower judgment.

2) In full view of the following circumstances, the lower court determined that the Defendant, as the title holder of the symptoms to be registered as the business operator of the instant marina, by deceiving the victim and deceiving the victim of the goods from the victim, separate from civil liability for the obligation to pay for the goods to the victim.

§ 23.