The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual errors and misapprehension of legal principles) is that the Defendants, on December 2009, filed a tax return by issuing a false tax invoice with respect to the Kamera development service and the Kamerggggs development service, and H Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “H”) was de facto compliance and did not transfer the Defendants’ personal property, and Defendant B was well aware of the fact that it is impossible for the Defendants to distribute profits up to three of the investments promised to the victim G due to the lack of the circumstances of H to make it difficult for the Defendants to act in collusion with the company, and the development of the products was also sufficiently recognized that the Defendant acquired the victim’s G money by means of realizing the exclusive sales right to the I Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “I”).

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendants is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is a person who operated a company of H, and Defendant B served as a business director of H and I.

From September 209 to October 2009, the Defendants conspired to acquire money and valuables by deceiving the attraction of investment funds, instead of attracting the investment funds of I who had been established and operated by J for the purpose of research and development in the existing information technology industry and manufacture and sale of 3D Cas, etc., due to the lack of operating funds.

Defendant

B In November 2009, 2009, in the coffee store in Seocho-gu Seoul, Seocho-gu, Seoul, the victim G produces 3D Kamera for broadcasting in the present I, 3D Mamera, 3D Mamera, 3D Mamera, etc. The company is a very promising company that received research funds from the State each year.

the Company.