The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the prosecutor's appeal is that the defendant's statement at the prosecutor's office and the victim's statement at the police can be fully acknowledged, and the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant of this case is erroneous in misunderstanding of facts.

2. The defendant's statement at the prosecutor's office and the victim's statement at the police station are consistent with the facts charged in the instant case that the defendant was issued KRW 5,00,00 as the purchase price of the vehicle from D by making a false statement that the defendant would purchase the vehicle without the victim D's intent to purchase the vehicle.

However, the defendant, from the court of the court below to this court, was asked for the purchase of a vehicle from D, and was asked for the purchase of the vehicle from D to E, so that he can purchase a vehicle with a usual knowledge, and delivered 5 million won from D to E with a vehicle price, and then E did not receive a vehicle purchase price by making a false statement as stated in the facts charged. D also delivered 50 million won from the court of the court below to request the defendant to purchase the vehicle first, and thereafter, it was called that he received 5 million won from E to purchase the vehicle from the defendant. The above defendant's and D's legal statements are inconsistent with the defendant's statements at the prosecutor's office as seen earlier, D's statements at D's police, and the facts charged in this case.

However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the defendant's statements at the prosecutor's office and D's statements at the police are more reliable than the above statements at the court of original instance. Thus, the defendant's statements at the prosecutor's office and the statements at D's police alone are insufficient to ensure that the facts charged in this case are true.