The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

The summary of the grounds for appeal: In relation to the case of mistake of facts [2017 High Court Decision 647], the Defendant, by deceiving C without any intention or ability to pay the lease cost, acquired lease cost amounting to KRW 2,905,760 by using the car leased by the Dispute Settlement Bank Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “the instant car”), and acquired the lease cost of KRW 2,905,760 in relation to the case [2017 High Court Decision 972], the Defendant, without the intention to deliver money to K, by deceiving the victim C without money, by deceiving the victim C, by deceiving him/her, but the lower court acquitted all the Defendant, so the lower court erred

Judgment

[2017 high-level 647] The circumstances of the lower court’s judgment as to the case and the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, i.e., when undergoing the first investigation at an investigative agency, C stated that “A would have made a vehicle of this case by paying rent directly to C around February 2016.” When undergoing the investigation at the prosecutor’s office, it stated that “I did not talk about the rent when I would deliver the vehicle of this case by having already agreed on the rent with the Defendant before the F is detained.” The testimony at the court of the lower court stated that “The Defendant would have to pay the rent for the vehicle of this case while I would bring the vehicle of this case.” However, the lower court reversed the statement that “F would not have any talk about the lease cost at the time of bringing the vehicle of this case,” and consistently from the time of undergoing the investigation at the investigative agency, it is difficult to view that the Defendant would have made a direct statement on the operation of the vehicle of this case as well as its credibility.”