The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the fraud of the facts charged in this case of mistake of facts, in light of the following: (a) from December 31, 2012 to December 31, 2012, the Defendant collected insurance money on condition that each of the policy holders pay the insurance money by proxy for a total of 64 times; (b) most of the policy holders who concluded an insurance contract with the victim through the Defendant are the relatives of the Defendant, and entered into a collective insurance contract within the short period; (c) each policy holder’s insurance premium was considerably effective; (d) most of the policy holders’ insurance premiums were paid out of the insurance collected by the Defendant; (e) a large number of insurance premiums were paid out of the insurance contracts; (e) the Defendant stated that the insurance premium was refunded by the policy holder; (e) there was no evidence to acknowledge the fact that there was no evidence to prove that the Defendant paid the insurance money by proxy, but the Defendant’s relative policy holder could not accurately memory the amount, method, and time when the contract became invalid, the Defendant is fully guilty of the facts charged of this case.

Nevertheless, the lower court rendered a not-guilty verdict on this part of the facts charged. In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one million won of a fine) is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In regard to the assertion of mistake of facts, the lower court, based on the circumstances alleged in the grounds of appeal by the prosecutor, states that there is doubt that the Defendant is not guilty of deceiving the solicitation fees from the victim as shown in the instant facts charged, but the recognition of the criminal facts in the criminal trial ought to be based on strict evidence with probative value, which makes the judge not likely to have any reasonable doubt. Therefore, the prosecutor’s proof is given.