The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The time of receiving fraud is when there is a mistake of facts and misapprehension of the legal principles (not guilty part) and the use of the money or goods that was received after the act of delivery has led to the occurrence of the crime of fraud. Thus, the money or goods obtained through the fraud shall be deemed to be all the money or goods received.

Therefore, even if the defendant actually used part of the duty-free oil supplied by the victim for its original purpose, it should be deemed that the crime of fraud is committed against the whole of 54,800 liters supplied.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one million won of a fine) is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged on the ground that the police interrogation protocol of the Defendant against the Defendant was inadmissible and inadmissible, and that even according to the facts charged itself, the Defendant was thought to use part of the duty-free oil for the use of the cargo fuel or for any other purpose at the time when the Defendant applied for the issuance of the duty-free oil purchase card or the supply of the duty-free oil, and the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone was not sufficiently proven as to how to deceive the Defendant to use the goods for any other purpose, and that the said 53,960 liter used the said 53,960 liter for any other purpose, and there was no other evidence to acknowledge this.

Examining these judgments of the court below in comparison with the evidence duly adopted and examined, the above judgment is just and acceptable, and it is also justified in holding that this part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime.

The circumstances alleged by the prosecutor as the grounds for appeal are set forth by the lower court in relation to the facts charged in this case.