The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant would purchase a vehicle that was destroyed by a contract (a vehicle with a temporary number plate, a one-time vehicle, and a lag vehicle; hereinafter referred to as a “laging vehicle”) at least 15% in an imminent situation after the Defendant entered into a contract to purchase a new vehicle with the victim D, which is operated by the victim D, around October 2010, in light of the victim D, under 209: (a) around 15%; and (b) the Defendant would directly bring the vehicle directly into the business in the arching vehicle or the modern vehicle business office; and (c) would not bring the vehicle into an intermediate brorder, such as F, even if he entered into a company with a financial guarantee. The vehicle payment means that the vehicle payment can be deposited into the modern vehicle or the business office and receive the transfer of ownership documents.”

However, in fact, the Defendant was planning to purchase a vehicle by F rather than directly purchasing a vehicle whose new car contract was cancelled in a car or a modern car, and the victim was likely to incur damage from a car transaction through F before, and the victim was well aware of the fact that the Defendant would not provide financial support if the Defendant knew that he would not purchase a vehicle through F, and the purchase price of the vehicle from the victim was directly delivered to the modern car or the car business office, and was not directly delivered the documents necessary for the transfer of the ownership of the vehicle, but was planned to deliver the purchase price of the vehicle to F and to deliver the said documents through F, even though the victim was also aware of such fact, it was well aware that the victim would not provide financial support.

Nevertheless, the Defendant did not notify the victim of the above fact at all, and as above, did so.