The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the defendant's assertion that the judgment in favor of the defendant was final and conclusive in the lawsuit claiming the construction cost of this case filed by the victim against the defendant (2013 Seoul Central District Court 534310) and that the agreement was prepared by force on November 17, 2012 is not reliable, and that the previous fraud case against the defendant (2014 High Court 2014 High Court 8798) judgment against the defendant is not capable of implementing large-scale development projects E. In light of the above, the defendant's criminal intent is recognized.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the charged facts of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

2. In full view of the circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined, the lower court, based on the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, was sufficiently proven to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt as to the fact that the Defendant had no ability to pay the construction cost at the time of concluding the instant construction contract or had the intent to acquire the amount equivalent to the construction cost by fraud.

On the ground that it is difficult to view the instant facts charged, the lower court acquitted the Defendant.

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is just and acceptable, and there is no error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as alleged by the prosecutor (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 10No. 19, Mar. 5, 2017). Accordingly, the Prosecutor’s aforementioned assertion is without merit.

The defendant's assertion that the victim H, a representative director, filed a civil lawsuit against the defendant et al. (as the Seoul Central District Court 2013 jointly 534310, 2015Na 2020771) against the defendant et al. is not accepted, and this N is not supported by the defendant's assertion that the self-agreement was drafted by force.