The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual errors) is that the Defendant concluded a contract with the victimJ even though he/she was unable to supply earth and sand to the limited liability company D (hereinafter “D”) even though he/she did not have the ability to supply earth and sand, and thus, the Defendant may be deemed to have committed deception and fraud by the Defendant.

2. Determination 1) The lower court: (a) held on July 25, 2013, that the Defendant first supplied 25 tons of earth and sand from D to December 2013, 2013 to the victim J; and (b) received KRW 50,00,00 from the victim J around July 29, 2013 as soil and sand sales proceeds; (c) the Defendant failed to supply soil and sand as promised to the victim J during the said period; (d) even though the Defendant is deemed to have failed to supply soil and sand as promised to the victim J during the said period, the lower court held that the Defendant was a representative director C (hereinafter “C”).

(C) On March 29, 2012, the Plaintiff issued advance payment of KRW 100 million to D and issued E and F (hereinafter “instant land”).

A contract to exclusively supply earth and sand was concluded on July 17, 2013; however, upon D’s request, C consents to supplying 100,000 cubic meters of the above earth and sand to a business entity designated by D; ② Accordingly D receives KRW 300,000 cubic meters of earth and sand to J; Defendant shall supply earth and sand to J as seen earlier; ③ D shall be notified on July 19, 2012 of refusing to apply for the extension of permission for gathering earth and sand from Jung-Eup; ④ It was possible to collect earth and sand with permission for gathering earth and sand from July 2013 to August 17, 2013; ④ It was allocated to J in the process of collecting earth and sand to supply it; ⑤ It was generated in the process of collecting earth and sand and supplying it to supply it to the J; ⑤ It was different from the cost of gathering earth and sand to supply it.