The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the fact that the statement in the court of the court below by the victim B claiming a misunderstanding of facts as to the acquitted portion is not inconsistent with the statement made by the investigative agency, that there is a reference to the additional deposit in the sales agency contract, and that the employee Y also paid only a part of the money as the sales deposit, and that the defendant was to use it as the operating fund, it is recognized that the defendant belongs to the use of KRW 20 million on April 14, 2016.

In full view of the fact that the victim B and C paid the sum of KRW 45 million to the defendant was at a time when the victim B had worked as the employee of the defendant company, that the victim B had been unaware of the real estate-related business due to the DNA and that the defendant was unaware of the company's obligations, it is recognized that the defendant deceivings the victims about the financial status, etc. of the company at the time.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted this part of the facts charged is erroneous by misapprehending the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s allegation of unfair sentencing as to the guilty portion (the 1st sentence: the 2nd sentence to the 10th sentence of imprisonment, the 2nd sentence to the 2nd sentence: the 2nd sentence to the 6th sentence of imprisonment) is too uneasible.

2. Determination

A. The lower court’s judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts as to the fraud against the victim B and C among the facts charged in the instant case: (a) the following circumstances acknowledged in accordance with the record, namely, ① B and C are married couple; and (b) the Defendant served as a promotion director in R Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “R”) operated by the Defendant from March 2016 to April 2017; and (b) the Defendant’s money stated in the facts charged in the lower court’s court’s court, as it invested in the Defendant’s operating fund of the company operated by the Defendant, was used as a sales agency deposit for the Ptel, and was difficult from the employee’s standpoint, thereby complying with the power.