The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. In light of the prosecutor’s summary of the grounds for appeal (fact-finding) E, L, and K’s statements are consistent from the investigative agency to the court below’s court, and K pays a certain amount of money in the name of the defendant for the recruitment of occupants, but it is consistently stated that it would be paid when profits accrue from the business, and that the amount of KRW 100 million has been transferred from the account in the name of G operated by E to the defendant’s account, each statement made by E, L, and K is credibility.

Nevertheless, by rejecting the credibility of each of the above statements, the court below erred in finding the Defendant not guilty of the facts charged in this case by misunderstanding the facts.

2. In order to reverse the judgment of the court below that rejected the credibility of each of the statements made by E, L, and K, which are evidence supporting the facts charged in the instant case, the judgment of the court below should be sufficiently and sufficiently acceptable. However, even considering the circumstances required in the grounds for appeal, it does not seem to be a circumstance to the extent that the judgment of the court below is not acceptable, such as most of the circumstances already pointed out in the process of the trial of the court below and considered in the process of the judgment of the court below.

This is more so in light of the following circumstances that the court below duly admitted and examined the evidence, namely, that E demands payment of KRW 100 million even to K, and that the N (Representative Director K) who worked as the chief executive officer at the time from N (Representative Director K) Co., Ltd., the executor of the F Development Project, stated that the investigative agency and the defendant received money from the E to the court of the court of the court below, from the E to the court of the court of the court below.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that acquitted the defendant is just, and there is a mistake as alleged in the grounds of appeal.