The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. According to the details of remittance of money by the victim to D, the victim is aware that the victim, not D, engaged in the same business and monetary transaction with the Defendants.

B. According to the Defendants’ account details, most of the money invested by the victim via D was used for other purposes, and the amount of money invested by the Defendants is unclear.

C. D, contrary to the victim’s assertion, stated that it directly paid the instant investment and loan, etc. to the Defendants and most of them settled, but D’s statements in conflict with the victim are difficult to credibility as they are.

In full view of the above circumstances, although the facts charged in this case can be fully recognized, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged in this case is erroneous by misapprehending the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged in this case is that the Defendants did not have any intent or ability to invest funds even if they operate the Internet shopping mall site for the purpose of arranging the sale and purchase of used cars and the victims E who operated the used cars and used cars.

Nevertheless, on April 20, 2008, the Defendants made an investment of KRW 50 million in the amount equivalent to 80% of the funds required for the said project by the victim under the F&F apartment 101 Dong 1201, Busan, Busan, Daegu, Maritime Transport Daegu, to the effect that the Defendant would make an investment of KRW 50,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0000,000,000,000)

5. 6.3 million won, and the same month;

8. A total of four times from that time to August 12, 2008, such as the receipt of five million won each, including the contents in the list of crimes in the attached Table, deceiving the victim for a total of 17.0 million won.