The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. In full view of the summary of the grounds for appeal (in fact-finding or misunderstanding of legal principles), G, K, L, etc.’s statement that the Defendant directly committed deception in the investigative agency and the court of original instance consistent in the investigation agency and the court of original instance that the Defendant was aware of the fact that the I was deprived of the status of the preferred negotiating object, and other relevant loan certificates, cashier’s checks, and deposit certificates, the court below acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged, but the judgment below erred by misapprehending the legal principles or adversely affecting the conclusion

2. Determination

A. The following facts are acknowledged according to the evidence adopted by the court below.

The Defendant and K had a substantial share of 50% in relation to D Co., Ltd. and performed the role necessary for the operation of the Company.

(Business Promotion Affairs have been carried out by K). The Defendant and K have raised money from various investors in the name of their investments, etc. (the company's financial standing is not good and there was a case where its employees such as J, etc. have borrowed money) and there was a high gap between the Defendant and K by asserting that they are the other party's responsibility.

(A) In the instant case, the Defendant consistently asserted that K is a person who borrows money from G. J and K were well aware from 1997, while J and the Defendant were first aware of K’s introduction in 2002 to 2003.

J and G themselves have a very very kind of relationship between G and G to the effect that “the Defendant, in the first time, believed and first met, has lent a large amount of money without any basic confirmation or examination as to the Defendant’s horses.” On the other hand, G and the Defendant first became aware of the introduction of the J around March 29, 2005 by the introduction of the J.

L has become aware of K as the same company company around 1999 and 2000, while the defendant and the defendant are able to reach only once through K.