The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (as to the acquittal part of the facts charged in the instant case, the lower court acquitted the Defendant on the charge of fraud and dismissed the prosecution on the violation of the Labor Standards Act. Accordingly, since the part dismissing the public prosecution was separated by filing an appeal only on the acquittal part, the scope of the judgment of the lower court is limited to the acquittal part among the judgment below.) The Defendant did not have any right to the instant restaurant, and the money received from the victim B or E did not appear to have been used in the instant restaurant.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the charged facts of the fraud of this case is erroneous by misapprehending the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. The lower court found the Defendant not guilty of this part of the facts charged on the ground that the Defendant’s statement on the content that the Defendant promised to make an investment is inconsistent and rather, the time has passed, and that “the Defendant had given the share in the franchise business to secure the future,” and that when considering E’s statement, if the instant restaurant was operated successfully, the Defendant would have acquired the franchise right, and that the Defendant would have obtained the franchise right if the instant restaurant was operated successfully, and that considerable portion of the money that the Defendant received from B and E was inserted into the instant restaurant and carried out construction at the final stage, and the Defendant would have waived construction due to the conflict with G (F’s father who waiting for construction costs)’s husband at the end.

The following circumstances, which can be recognized by the records in detail by the court below, B did not definitely speak at the court of the court below (the defendant) and gave 25% equity to any business," "(which divided the contents of conversation concerning the franchise business of the restaurant of this case)" and "it cannot be specified," and "25% equity" are too abstract.