The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the court below found the defendant not guilty on the ground that it is difficult to recognize the defendant's intentional deceptive act on the ground that the court below erred by misunderstanding the fact that it was difficult to recognize the defendant's intentional deceptive act, and thereby adversely affected the conclusion of the judgment, even though the defendant entered into an agreement to construct the steel reinforced concrete structure from the beginning and had already received the construction cost for the steel reinforced concrete structure, and subcontracted the victim's construction work with the exception of the construction cost for the steel frame.

2. The existence of the crime of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of the crime of fraud, should be determined by comprehensively taking into account the objective circumstances, such as the defendant's refeasible power, environment, content of the crime, process of transaction, and relationship with the complainant, unless the defendant makes a confession (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 85Do2662, Jul. 7, 1987; 95Do3034, Mar. 26, 1996). The prosecutor bears the burden of proving the crime prosecuted in a criminal trial. The conviction should be based on evidence with probative value that leads to a judge's conviction to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt. Thus, if there is no such evidence, it is inevitable to determine the defendant's interest as the defendant's interest even if there is any doubt about the defendant's guilt, which is a subjective element of the crime of fraud (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Do1301, Oct. 14, 2005).