The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Although the summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual error) recognizes the fact that the defendant deceivings the victim as stated in the facts charged and acquired the deposit money, the court below acquitted the defendant of the facts charged, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. In a judgment in a criminal trial, criminal facts must be found based on strict evidence of probative value, which makes a judge not to have any reasonable doubt. Thus, in a case where the prosecutor’s proof fails to fully reach the extent that the defendant’s assertion or defense is inconsistent or unreasonable, it should be determined in the interests of the defendant even if there is suspicion of guilt, such as where the defendant’s assertion or defense is inconsistent or unreasonable.

(1) The lower court determined that the Defendant’s act of deception should not be readily concluded solely on the grounds that five witnesses, including the victim, were examined in the court, and that profits have decreased due to difficulties in the operation of marina, etc. as stated in its reasoning, i.e., the circumstances after the act of deception was not at the time of deception, but at the time of deception, there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge that E was aware of or anticipated at the time of deception. At the time of deception, E did not appear to be specific at the time of deception; rather, E did not appear to have been executed; rather, the Defendant revoked the attachment; the Defendant paid part of the sales amount to the victim; whether the repayment of deposit and the possibility of paying the payment of deposit to the victim may vary depending on the sales and profit of marina; and the Defendant’s intent to commit fraud should not be readily concluded when performing the contract was performed.