The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the evidence submitted in the gist of the grounds for appeal, the fact that the Defendant, even though there was no fact that the Defendant entered into the D Nowon datum and the event sales contract, as stated in the facts charged, by deceiving the victim as if the D Nowon datum and the event sales contract were concluded, and by deceiving the money by deceiving the victim.

Nevertheless, the court below acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of judgment.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged in this case is that the Defendant was the representative director of C Co., Ltd., and the fact that C Co., Ltd. did not conclude the D Nowon datum and the event sales contract, he would be able to instruct E to invite shop occupants as it is possible to use the event sales store within D Nowon datum and to conclude a contract. On November 17, 2010, E Co., Ltd. located in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government upon receiving the Defendant’s instructions from G at the Seoul Metropolitan Business Office located in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, to conduct a consignment sale with 59 million won from D Nowon datum.

The phrase “assumed,” it received a total of KRW 59 million from G to December 14, 2010 from that time on the same date, from which he/she received KRW 7 million from G, from which he/she received a remittance of KRW 59 million from that time on five occasions by December 14, 2010.

B. The lower court rendered a not guilty verdict on the instant facts charged on the grounds that it is difficult to deem that the evidence presented by the prosecutor alone, on the grounds indicated in its reasoning, did not have proven that the Defendant committed deception, such as the entry in the facts charged, and had attempted to commit fraud, without reasonable doubt.

Comprehensively taking account of the circumstances in the lower court’s reasoning admitted by evidence, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is just and acceptable. Therefore, it seems that the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine as pointed out by the prosecutor, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.