The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The victim D, who did not receive the payment from the Defendant of the summary of the grounds for appeal, has loaned money from the Defendant to the Defendant with the belief of the promise that “to receive the investment from the prospective investors in the restaurant within three months,” and even according to the statement of the witness G of the lower court, it is clear that there was no confirmed investor at the time.

Defendant

The defendant's statement as to the existence of an investor is obvious that it is false, and the deception against the victim is sufficiently recognized, as it does not specify the identity of the person who has actually made an investment at all.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts and acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged.

2. In a judgment of conviction in a criminal trial, the conviction ought to be based on evidence of probative value, which leads to the judge’s conviction that is beyond reasonable doubt, to such a degree that the facts charged are true. Therefore, in a case where the prosecutor’s proof fails to sufficiently reach the degree that such conviction would lead to a reasonable conviction, the determination ought to be based on the defendant’s benefit even if

According to the facts duly admitted by the lower court, D lent money to the Defendant on August 29, 2013 and lent money more than nine times for a period of almost one year until August 16, 2014. The repayment deadline is not set at three months, not for three months after the first loan on August 29, 2013, and the second and third loans were made on November 11, 2013 and the second and third loans were made on November 30, 2013, and the title thereof was paid a deposit money for the operation of the instant restaurant.

D shall enter into a lease contract under its own name on October 17, 2013, and on October 2013.