The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant of each of the charges of this case, although the defendant could be found to have received advance payment, etc. from the victim with the intention to acquire by deceit, is erroneous and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment

2. The lower court determined as follows: (a) the Defendant: (a) deemed to have stated in its reasoning that the Defendant was “the victim was working for the E entertainment tavern operated by the victim (hereinafter “instant entertainment tavern”); (b) performed the Defendant’s obligation to the victim with profits from customers; and (c) provided full repayment of the remainder of the obligation upon retirement from the instant entertainment tavern; (d) the Defendant was working for the instant entertainment tavern for about four months from March 6, 2018 to July 1, 2018; and (c) the Defendant appears to have generated sales revenue of about KRW 58,50,000 during said period; and (c) the victim stated in the lower court’s court that “the victim was working for three months in the case of the E entertainment tavern operated by the victim and moved to another entertainment tavern; and (e) the period for which the Defendant was working at the instant entertainment tavern was not necessarily shorter than the period for which the Defendant had no reasonable intent to prove that the Defendant did not work at work since July 3, 2018.

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in comparison with the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the above judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and it is erroneous as otherwise alleged by the public prosecutor.