The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor to the gist of the grounds for appeal, the fact that the Defendant, “to purchase heavy Samsung Motor Vehicle” and deceiving the victim to acquire KRW 9 million can be fully recognized.

The judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case is erroneous.

2. As evidence corresponding to the facts charged in the instant case, there are statements in the investigation agencies of D, H and I and the court below in the court below.

On the other hand, the defendant consistently asserts that, from the investigative agency to the court of the trial, the accident vehicle has been purchased and repaired between D and the other party, and the other party has been sold, and the vehicle has been brought to the maintenance station to purchase and repair the halog accident vehicle with the amount of KRW 9 million. However, the defendant did not repair and sell the vehicle at the wind of hospital due to the East H of D.

According to the records, it is recognized that the defendant decided to purchase halog L halog L car from G and received KRW 9 million from D on November 14, 201, and transferred the same day to G as the price for the vehicle, and that the above KRW 3.5 million out of the above KRW 9 million was remitted to G as the price for the vehicle on the same day, and that the defendant purchased parts equivalent to KRW 200,000 to bring and repair the above halog vehicle due to the maintenance shop that the defendant was employed at the time, and that the details of the transaction of the passbook and the statement of the original judgment by K in the court below conform to the defendant's assertion

On the other hand, D asserts that the Defendant heard the horses that “I will purchase and sell heavy Samsung Vehicles,” and transferred KRW 9 million to the Defendant. However, it is against the rule of experience that the Defendant did not specify the model and chain at all while purchasing heavy vehicles and did not ask the Defendant about it, and even if the Defendant was immediately at the end, he transferred KRW 9 million to the Defendant on November 14, 201, and then transferred the instant complaint to October 9, 201.