The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor’s summary of the grounds for appeal, the fact that the Defendant, without the authority to act for G or M, would enter into a subcontract of the contract for the carriage of coal goods in the thermal power plant that the said company received, by deceiving the victim C (limited partnershipD) and L (K) to obtain money from the said victims can be sufficiently recognized.

Nevertheless, the court below acquitted the defendant. The court below erred by misunderstanding the facts or misunderstanding the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly examined and adopted, the lower court determined that the evidence presented by the prosecutor alone was insufficient to recognize the instant facts charged, and otherwise, did not have any evidence.

B. The burden of proof for the criminal facts prosecuted in a criminal trial is to be borne by the public prosecutor, and the conviction shall be based on the evidence of probative value, which makes the judge sure that the facts charged are true to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt, and if there is no evidence to form such a conviction, the suspicion of guilt is against the defendant even if there is no evidence to establish such a degree.

Even if there is no choice but to judge the interests of the defendant.

In light of the above legal principles, we examine the evidence of this case in detail in light of the records. The court below's finding the defendant not guilty of the facts charged of this case on the ground that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone for reasons as stated in its holding is not sufficient to have proved to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt as to deceiving the victims as stated in the facts charged, and that there is no other evidence to recognize it, it is just to conclude that the court below acquitted the defendant of this case on the ground that there is no other evidence to recognize it, and it is erroneous to misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as argued by the prosecutor.