The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts) borrowed money from the injured party without any verification as to whether a legitimate contract has been concluded between the ordering person and the ordering person (the ordering person) and whether he/she can make a lawful subcontract to the injured party, without any verification as to whether he/she can do so.

Although the court below found the defendant guilty as sufficient, there is an error of law by misunderstanding facts in violation of the rules of evidence.

2. The grounds cited by the first instance court for the judgment of innocence are different, and the following circumstances, which can be acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, and the circumstances in which evidence to prove the facts charged of this case was not submitted in the appellate court, the first instance court's decision that acquitted the Defendant is just and acceptable, and there is an error of misunderstanding of facts, as alleged by the prosecutor, contrary to the prosecutor's assertion.

Therefore, the prosecutor's above assertion is without merit.

① Although the Defendant did not check who is the actual owner or executor of the instant construction project, the actual construction was carried out under the supervision of I called the president, and the victim was also supplied materials from I under the supervision of I under the re-subcontract agreement with the Defendant and actually carried out the structural construction.

In the end, the defendant's speech that he would give a subcontract for the pelvis was performed when he borrowed money, and there was no deception.

② The Defendant appears to have concluded a subcontract with H rather than concluding a direct contract with the building owner, rather than concluding a direct contract with H (H, after concluding a contract with G (project owner I) at the lower court, submitted a written confirmation that the Defendant concluded a contract with G, and the examination of H was not conducted due to impossibility of delivery). Accordingly, the other party to the contract for construction by the Defendant is the building owner or executor.