The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts) is the bad credit holder at the time when the instant crime was committed. The Defendant was delinquent in national taxes and was unable to pay the card amount economically due to delayed payment. The Defendant received money from the injured party and used the existing debt repayment and living expenses. The lower court held that the Defendant’s contact with the injured party “Skman at the early August 2016,” and that it is impossible to develop an automatic self-stention method to return all the money received.

the Commission.

Although the victim determined that “after having paid the money on July 3, 2016, the victim responded to the above remarks from the Defendant at the court of the lower court before October 2016.”

The defendant stated that he received money from the injured party and used part of the money as the development cost of the key machine of this case.

However, in full view of the following facts: (a) the victim did not present objective data, and the victim did not have any intent or ability to develop an automatic fireworks at the time of committing the instant crime, taking into account the fact that the court below found the Defendant’s office and confirmed whether the Defendant was developing the key machine; (b) the Defendant did not have produced the key machine; and (c) the singing machine was ordinarily distributed from the time of the Defendant’s production; and (d) stated that the Defendant did not have developed the key machine.

2. The lower court found the Defendant not guilty on the ground that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone was insufficient to recognize that the Defendant was guilty or was unable to develop a self-reader, and that there was no other evidence to acknowledge it.

The above judgment of the court below is just in light of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the reasoning of the court below.

Therefore, the prosecutor's assertion that the judgment of the court below that acquitted the defendant of the facts charged of this case is erroneous is without merit.

3...