The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. On April 28, 2012, the summary of the grounds for appeal revealed that the Defendant was aware of the fact that the Defendant agreed to bring 100% of the credit card sales amount of the instant marina between H and H, and thereafter, it cannot be deemed that there was an intention or ability to pay the price even if the Defendant was supplied with the goods from the victims.

Therefore, even if a crime of fraud may be established with respect to the part of the Defendant supplied goods after April 28, 2012, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact that the lower court acquitted the Defendant of the instant facts charged, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The lower court determined as follows: (a) the daily sales of the instant marina after remodeling construction work was at least KRW 50 million per day in the early stage; (b) the Defendant was aware that H would bring about only 50% of the card sales at the early stage; (c) the Defendant was able to use the remaining 50% of the card sales as the Mt operating fund; (d) the Defendant was supplied with goods from the victims; (e) the card sales amount of KRW 158 million was approximately KRW 50,000,000,000, which was 50% of the victims; and (e) the Defendant was not able to receive approximately KRW 80,000 from the victims in light of the amount of KRW 80,000,000,000,000 for the first time after remodeling construction work; and (e) the Defendant was able to recover KRW 800,000,000,000 for the total amount of KRW 10,000,00 for the victims.