The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

The summary of the grounds for appeal (the mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles) (the defendant, after commencing a damage evaluation by E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “E”), submitted a false list of total holders, etc. as stated in the facts charged in this case, to E, and E made a false damage evaluation, etc. based on this, it constitutes deception against the victim, and shall be deemed to have commenced a crime of fraud.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles.

In addition, the court below judged that the list of total holders submitted by the defendant to E and the list of total holders submitted by the defendant to E at the time of the insurance contract is identical without any ground.

Judgment

In full view of the facts and circumstances established in the judgment below, the court below acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged in this case on the ground that the evidence duly adopted and investigated in this case alone is insufficient to deem that the Defendant commenced the execution of the crime of fraud, solely on the basis of the entire list of holders, the list of mechanical equipment and equipment, and the written estimates for interior decoration construction, which are the data collected by E in the course of investigating damage caused by fire.

In light of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below, the court below's above determination is just and acceptable, and there is no error of misconception of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as alleged by the prosecutor.

Therefore, prosecutor's assertion is without merit.

On July 28, 2015, the store operated by the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as “instant store”).