The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts by the prosecutor), the court below found the Defendants not guilty of the facts charged on the following grounds.

According to the facts charged under Paragraph (1) and related agreement (hereinafter "Agreement of this case"), the defendant A received money on the condition that he purchases H hotel from the complainants. Since the defendant received the acquisition fund for the factory located in Ansan-si, not the lock-gu factory located in both states, it is contrary to the defendant A's assertion that it was an investment fund for the factory located in Ansan-si, and since the repayment date was set in the above agreement and the defendant A delivered a promissory note as collateral to the complainants, the amount that the complainant paid to the defendant A is a loan and the complainant was recognized to have paid the above money by the defendant's deception.

B. The statements of the complainants related to paragraph (1) of Article 2 of the facts charged are consistent, detailed and detailed.

In light of the fact that the purchaser of the M& factory building in the following cities is the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “instant company”) and the defendant A and B were well known, the defendant A delivered a promissory note knowing that the defendant B would receive the down payment from the complainant, and the defendant B delivered it to the complainant, and it is recognized that the defendant B received the down payment by deceiving the complainant jointly.

C. In light of the fact that Defendant B stated that Defendant B would purchase the Promissory Notes with Defendant A, and consistently stated that Defendant B received the Promissory Notes of the instant company through Defendant B, and that Defendant B paid the Promissory Notes of the instant company to the complainant, the Defendants conspired to do so with the complainants.