The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor’s summary of the grounds for appeal, the Defendant: (a) received some of the funds from the victims by attracting them to open a club in operation; (b) there is little possibility that profits from the club amounting to KRW 10 million to KRW 30 million; and (c) there was no intention or ability to return 80% of the investment principal to the victims; and (b) thus, the Defendant could recognize the fact that he received the funds by deceiving the victims.

Nevertheless, the lower court did not recognize deception as identical to the facts charged in the instant case, and rendered a not-guilty verdict on all the facts charged in the instant case.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. The lower court determined that there was a mistake of facts regarding the act of deception related to premium ( ①) on the premise that the victims knew that the Defendant would have contributed to the previous club F in kind, the prosecutor did not separately dispute the lower court’s judgment in the statement of grounds of appeal, and instead argued for mistake of facts on the premise that the victims knew of the Defendant’s operation of the clubF.

The Defendant and victims evaluated the amount of KRW 85 million, KRW 250 million, KRW 410 million, KRW 4950 million, and KRW 4950 million as the amount of money invested by the Defendant, among the amount of deposit and premium set forth in the business performance agreement (operating), and determined that this part of the Defendant’s deception cannot be recognized on the ground that the Defendant invested more than 1/3 of its own investment ratio and was able to receive part of the amount of money invested by the victims.

The circumstances acknowledged by the court below and the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below, i.e., the agreement on the implementation of the project (Dong business) shall be made by the victim C, and the defendant.