The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the court below acquitted the complainant of the facts charged in this case, although the defendant had already obtained relevant authorization and permission despite the uncertainty of the approval for the construction of a G G G G G G G major factory in Ansan-si, and it could sufficiently be recognized that the complainant had obtained money from the complainant by deceiving the complainant that the complainant would take part in the construction of soil and sand transportation services. However, the court below acquitted the complainant of the facts charged in this case. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles or by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby

B. Even if the above fraud is not acknowledged against the defendant, the court below acquitted the defendant of the conjunctive facts charged in this case, even though the defendant could have lent part of the money received from the complainant as the expenses for the establishment of a so-called borrow and used the remaining money for personal living expenses. However, the court below found the defendant not guilty of the facts charged in this case. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. The court below found the following facts based on the evidence duly adopted and examined at the court below. ① The defendant entered into an agreement between F and F of the complainant company to use the name of vice president and receive incentives based on performance instead of obtaining earth and sand gathering work. ② During that process, the defendant provided information that it is possible to collect earth and sand since G day was under the development of Asan City G day, and the defendant provided KRW 30 million to the defendant for the expenses that successful the transaction. ③ The defendant previously borrowed KRW 30 million from F and KRW 30 million as stated in the facts charged of this case.