The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the prosecutor's appeal (the factual error) concluded a product supply contract with the victim to manufacture and supply 120,000,000, 50,000, 120,000, 120,000, and 9,214,000, among those, were not used for the execution of the contract of this case. D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "the company of this case") operated by the defendant was not sold as a dispute with the owner of the trademark right of this case in 2010, and the defendant did not have the capacity to receive advance payment from the victim in light of the intent of the victim and the defendant's each of the contract of this case, and there was no intention to supply or pay advance payment from the victim of this case within the limit of 15,00,00,000, 100,000 won.

Nevertheless, the court below erred in finding the defendant not guilty of the facts charged of this case by misunderstanding the fact by determining that the crime of defraudation is not recognized merely because part of the money acquired by deceit was used for the implementation of the contract of this case.

2. In full view of the circumstances cited by the lower judgment and the following circumstances recognized by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, the lower court is justifiable to have determined that the fact that the Defendant was aware of the intent to defraud for the reasons indicated in its reasoning cannot be deemed proven to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt, and there is no error as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

(1) The defendant shall be responsible for the pipes and pipes of cosmetics in part of the amount he/she received from victims.