All appeals filed by the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (in fact-finding), the lower court acquitted the complainant by rejecting the credibility of his/her statement.

However, in full view of the fact that there was a difference in the contents of some statements made by the complainant to the defendant B in the course of making a concrete statement about the circumstances in which the complainant paid KRW 7 million to the defendant B, it is difficult to view that the complainant changed the existing statements, a part of the statement made by the prosecutor's office cannot be deemed to have no fact that the defendant C requested the complainant to pay the money for the expenses of the complainant. The court below erred in making the process of preparing the investment agreement based on a part of the statement made by the complainant at the prosecutor's office, and the fact that the substance of the E-liability Company in V and Hong Kong has not been verified

Nevertheless, the lower court erred in misapprehending the facts charged and acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged.

2. In light of the following facts and circumstances admitted by the court below based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below along with the circumstances of the prosecutor’s assertion of mistake of facts, it is difficult to acknowledge the credibility of the complainant’s statement, and the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone cannot be deemed to have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendants acquired money by deceiving the complainant.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is justified, and the prosecutor's allegation of mistake is not accepted.

① Of KRW 50 million, L paid 3.5 million to Defendant B, and transferred the remainder of KRW 46.5 million to the account in the name of H in fact operated by the complainant. The complainant received from L the above KRW 46.5 million and paid KRW 26.2 million to Defendant A and KRW 3.2 million to Defendant B, as stated in the instant facts charged, as indicated in the instant facts charged, and paid KRW 13.3 million remaining (= KRW 46.5 million - KRW 26.2 million - KRW 7 million).