The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

In light of the above legal principles, the court below erred in finding the Defendant not guilty of the charges of this case due to misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles, although it could sufficiently recognize the fact that the Defendant deceivinged the victim’s wife by deceiving L.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged D is the one who mediates the repair and sale of agricultural machinery in the name of “F” in Biju City E, and the Defendant is the one who is engaged in agriculture in G in the Jeonju-gun of North Korea.

D On January 3, 2016, H was well aware that he was in the place where the victim was in the place of contract with the victim I and Germany, and that the victim was in the place of business.

Around January 16, 2016, the Defendant and D met with the mind that the victim was in the absence of the victim at the place of repair business for the sales of the home agricultural machinery operated by the victim in the Namnam-gun of South and North Korea on January 16, 2016, with the knowledge that the victim was in the absence of the victim at the place of repair business for the sale of the home agricultural machinery operated by the victim and that H was in the absence of the victim at the place of repair business for the overseas business, and the Defendant entered into a contract for the victim with the victim to take over 1,70,000 won of the market price ( Germany, 180 EM, * L07530 R 520* 520146*).

H As if the Defendant was H, D confirmed remittance details, etc. as if the Defendant was H, and belonged to the victim’s wife.

Thus, the defendant and D had deceiving the wife of the victim, and the defendant and D were issued with the codinator equivalent to the market price of 77 million won from L.

B. The lower court’s determination is based on the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, namely, ① the relationship between the Defendant and the accomplice, and not personal-friendly relationship, and in particular, on January 16, 2016, at the time of the occurrence of the instant case, a criminal case is under way at the time of the lapse of 20 days after the Defendant filed a complaint with the former North Korea Police Station, and thus, mutual interests conflict.