The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor to the summary of the grounds for appeal, the court below acquitted the defendant of the facts charged in this case, which is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts and in the misapprehension of legal principles, although the defendant could fully recognize the fact that he had by deception the victim with the intent to commit the crime of deception.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is a person who is operating a distribution company of c’s c’s c’, and the victim D is a person who operates a c’s c’s c’s c’s c’s c’

On January 1, 2015, the Defendant called a telephone to the victim on January 1, 2015, and “The land in the name of F in the Gunsan City is about 1,980 square meters.”

When disposing of the land, at least KRW 500,000 can be received, it was false to believe that it is possible to receive a minimum of KRW 500,00,000, and to supply the cryc

However, in addition to the existing credit amount of KRW 82,00,000 for E, the Defendant had a debt of KRW 211,30,000 for all kinds of financial institutions and a debt of KRW 280,00 for family members and branch members. C was in a state where only the deficit was accumulated, and C did not have any particular revenue. The above F land with a half of the Defendant’s share was located within the land development restriction zone and the actual value of which is less than KRW 350,000,00,000, so the Defendant did not have any ability and intent to pay the amount even if he was supplied with a chickens by the injured person.

The Defendant was supplied with a chickens amounting to KRW 447,750,450 from January 1, 2015 to September 30, 2015 by the damaged party, and the Defendant did not pay KRW 126,325,172 out of the price, thereby acquiring a considerable pecuniary benefit.

B. The lower court’s judgment determined that the Defendant and the victim met all the following circumstances, namely, ① the Defendant and the victim exchanged through meetings, etc. more than once a month from 15 to 20 years before the date of the adoption of the evidence, and that there was a gap between the Defendant and the victim, and ② the Defendant.