The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. In light of the summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts), the statement of the victim E, the legal testimony of the F corresponding thereto, and the fact that the defendant did not secure any other investor unlike the agreement and did not have the intent or ability to pay the principal and dividends of the investment, the court below acquitted the defendant about the charge of deception and deception, despite the fact that the defendant can be recognized, is erroneous.

2. On January 6, 2012, the lower court: (a) sent the Defendant an e-mail to the effect that “F, who introduced the Defendant to the victim, made an investment in the above-mentioned bill 1.1 million won by preparing the victim’s 550,000 square meters and 550,000 won of the victim’s friendly arrest, and the victim’s ar-mail was difficult to prepare the above-mentioned bill on the wind with the victim’s ar-friendly arrest; (b) the victim filed a complaint with the Chinese So-gu Police Station for fraud in early 2013, with the Defendant on suspicion of fraud; (c) the Defendant filed a complaint with the same suspicion with the same investigation agency; and (d) the Defendant testified to the effect that the Defendant was promptly invested in the mine; and (d) the victim was not 57,000,000 won of the money actually delivered to the Defendant; and (e) the victim did not prepare the above e-mail amount of money from the above e-mail.

It is difficult to eliminate the possibility of making a false statement in order to return money from the defendant, even though the business of the defendant's mine did not run properly. It is difficult to eliminate the possibility of making a false statement in order to return money from the defendant.

In addition, as stated in the facts charged, the defendant's own ability will be transferred and any project will be undertaken.