The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. In full view of the following facts: (a) the victim of the grounds for appeal asserts that he paid KRW 100 million to the Defendant out of the interference cost; and (b) the Defendant, at the time of receiving money from the victim, was not in economic condition at the time when he received money from the victim; and (c) used the considerable part of the received money for the purpose unrelated to film production; (b) the Defendant could be found to have obtained money by deceiving the victim as stated in the facts charged in the instant case, but the lower court erred

2. Determination

A. Criminal facts in a criminal trial should be established based on strict evidence with probative value, which leads a judge to have a reasonable doubt, and thus, in a case where the prosecutor’s proof fails to sufficiently reach the extent that the defendant’s assertion or defense is inconsistent or unreasonable, it should be determined in the interests of the defendant even if there is suspicion of guilt, such as where the defendant’s assertion or defense is inconsistent or unreasonable.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Do14487 Decided April 28, 2011, etc.)

B. The lower court, based on the facts and circumstances stated in its reasoning, did not have proposed that the Defendant first made a film to the victim, and did not bear the cost of film production between the victim and the Defendant.

The defendant did not have agreed to attract investment in the above film production cost. The victim and the defendant did not have agreed to use 100 million won of scenario writers from F only as an interference cost. In light of the above circumstances, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is the film in which the defendant invests 100 million won in the victim's interference cost as stated in the facts charged in this case.