The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that the prosecutor of the court below acquitted the defendant on the ground that the defendant's excessive claim for the payment for completed portion under the agreement with G and H, which is an employee of the Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "the complainant"), is recognized to a certain extent, but G et al. did not have the authority to permit the defendant to claim the payment for completed portion in advance, and the defendant was well aware of such fact. Thus, even though the defendant could be deemed to have conspired with G et al. and obtained the defendant by deceiving 46,90,676 won, the prosecutor's evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone cannot be deemed to have proved that the facts charged in this case are beyond reasonable doubt, and thus

2. Determination

A. From around 2010, the Defendant, who operated D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd.”) for the purpose of manufacturing and painting metal structures, has been engaged in continuous transactions with the complainant company, including obtaining the seal of steel structure from the complainant company.

On December 1, 2011, when the Defendant receives steel-frame production and painting construction from the complainant company, the Defendant agreed to receive the seal from the complainant company and to receive the delivery cost after deducting the material cost.

However, as the defendant company suffered from the financial shortage, the defendant company included the material cost supplied by the complainant company in the price, and added the result of the delivery to the complainant company, and raised funds by claiming the price to the complainant company.

Accordingly, on January 2012, the defendant filed a claim against the complainant in the office of the defendant company located in Suwon-gu in Busan, Busan, for the supply price for December 201, the amount equivalent to KRW 164,451,100 is equivalent to KRW 207,12,00.