All appeals filed by the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is evidence consistent with the facts charged in the instant case, and there is a statement in the victim’s investigative agency and the court that “the Defendants did not fully pay money except repayment or offset 280,000,000,000 won to the victim’s investigative agency and the victim’s investigative agency.”

Although the statement of the victim is somewhat inconsistent, the defendants also reverse the statement several times, and even if the victim's statement is more reliable than the statement of the defendants, the court below did not prove that the above evidence alone is not sufficient to prove that the intent of the defendants' public offering or fraud is not reasonable.

In light of the facts charged, the lower court acquitted the instant charges.

This judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts that affected the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is South Korea, and even if the Defendant borrowed money from the victim E, a restaurant operator working for the Defendant A, the Defendants conspired to obtain money from the victim for the purpose of business funds, despite the absence of the intent or ability to obtain money by purchasing and selling the borrowed money with the money, the Defendants conspired to obtain money from the victim for business funds.

Defendant

A around February 2, 2010, in the "F" restaurant in the victim's business management in the same city and below the Dong-si of Japan, "B" is distributed in the victim's bags, and since there is no money to live in the goods, A does not sell the goods.

When lending money to the goods, it is necessary to pay the money and pay 10% interest with the profit.

Because of the strike through the Internet, the sales proceeds can be clearly received within 2 weeks at latest.

“Falsely speaking,” and Defendant B around that time, G 103 Dong 1606.