The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor’s summary of the grounds for appeal, even though the Defendant only ordered G Corporation at the same time as KRW 100 million for the construction cost, and the other Corporation did not have any intent or ability to have the victim take charge of more than KRW 5 billion for a year 2010, as stated in the facts charged, it can be sufficiently recognized that the Defendant deceiving the victim as stated in the facts charged, and acquired it by transfer from the victim as investment money.

Nevertheless, the lower court’s judgment that acquitted the charged facts of this case was erroneous and adversely affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. In light of the circumstances acknowledged by the evidence adopted and examined, and the victim's relation, transaction situation, victim's experience, knowledge, occupation, etc., the court below determined that the victim invested funds in the defendant based on the defendant's own judgment based on the use of the F when the defendant jointly carries out river restoration works using the natural stone that the defendant carried out and the river restoration works using the F when the victim carried out, the defendant presented the overall progress situation and possibility of the river restoration works using the F, and it seems that the defendant failed to attain the actual performance as originally anticipated during the actual process. However, the court below found the defendant not guilty of the facts charged on the ground that it is difficult to acknowledge the facts charged only with the evidence submitted by the prosecutor and there is no other evidence to acknowledge them. A thorough examination in comparison with the judgment of the court below, it is acceptable to accept the judgment, and a new evidence is additionally submitted in the court of appeal to support the facts alleged in the grounds for appeal.