The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor of the gist of the grounds for appeal, even though the defendant could recognize the fact that he acquired by deceptioning KRW 33 million from the victim as a loan, the court below found the defendant not guilty of this, and there is an error of misconception of facts and in

2. Determination

A. The lower court: (a) invested in a multi-level company called “C” established by the Defendant; (b) was responsible for raising “C” investors; (c) was responsible for the transfer of investments deposited from investors to B; (b) the investment funds of investors recruited by the Defendant were first deposited into each account indicated in the facts charged under the name of the Defendant E (hereinafter “each of the accounts in this case”); and (c) was managed by the method of transferring money to B under the direction of B; and (d) the complainant invested a certain amount of money in the “C” from August 28, 2014 to the same month.

8. Until September 31, 200, a total sum of KRW 33 million was remitted to each of the instant accounts, as shown in the facts charged, (4) E wired money to B from the balance of the account immediately after the complainant received the said money from the account transfer; (5) on August 29, 2014, a cash amount of KRW 6 million was withdrawn from each of the instant accounts; and (4) on September 1, 2014, a sum of KRW 18 million was transferred to the Defendant’s son during the period from September 1, 2014 to September 2, 2014; however, there is insufficient details of transactions, such as the sum of the said details of transactions (24 million) and loans claimed by the complainant (33 million won) are inconsistent with each other; (6) In this regard, B received money from the Defendant in advance after consultation with D to make a transfer of money to its own account; and (3) “The Defendant and C’s allowance was paid to C’s investment.”