The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts) is reasonable to deem that the Defendant promised to guarantee the principal and high-amount interest rate and borrowed it by the victim in light of dialogues between the Defendant and the victim. Even if the amount of money given by the victim is invested, it shall be deemed that the Defendant was given money by actively deceiving the victim by actively deceiving the victim, such as the victim’s harshness and fluence beyond the scope of simple investment solicitation.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the facts charged of this case.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated, the lower court determined that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone was insufficient to recognize each of the instant charges.

1) On June 16, 2015, the Defendant: (a) opened a stock transaction account (Account Number: J; hereinafter “instant account”) in the name of the Defendant’s KH investment securities and deposited KRW 200 million in the NH investment securities in the name of the Defendant at the time; (b) again, on July 27, 2015, the Defendant opened a stock transaction account (Account Number: K; hereinafter “instant account”) in the NH investment securities under the name of the Defendant, and did not deposit money separately in the instant account.

Since then, the Defendant primarily traded shares using the instant 1 account, and the instant 2 account was rarely used.

D. On April 25, 2016, the remaining balance of KRW 197,403,254, including stocks and deposits, was remaining in the account of this case. On April 27, 2016, the victim remitted KRW 50 million to the first account of this case, and the Defendant deposited KRW 30 million in the account of this case and increased the balance to KRW 277,63,438.

In other words, the defendant on April 27, 2016.