The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles or by misapprehending the legal principles on the facts charged of fraud, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, even though the identity of the facts charged is recognized, the court below rejected the application for changes in indictment in the crime of embezzlement, and even if the defendant conspired with D and acquired the vehicle acquisition price from the victim.

2. In light of the circumstances stated in its holding, the lower court found the Defendant not guilty on the ground that the Defendant’s application for changes in indictment to embezzlement cannot be deemed identical to the social factual relations, which form the basis of both charges, and that the Defendant spent the amount that the Defendant received from the victim as the purchase cost, parts cost, and repair cost. As such, the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor alone cannot be deemed to have acquired the vehicle acquisition cost.

Examining the above judgment of the court below closely by comparing it with the records, the judgment of the court below is just, and contrary to the prosecutor’s assertion, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles, or by

Therefore, the prosecutor's above assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.