The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual error and the misapprehension of the legal principle), according to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the defendant is fully aware of the fact that the defendant deceivings the victim as stated in the facts charged and acquired money as a deposit for lease and the intent of

2. The first instance court, in light of the circumstances as stated in detail in the reasoning of the judgment, acquired money by deceiving the victim as a normal deposit for lease on a deposit basis only by the evidence submitted by the prosecutor.

It was judged not guilty of the charges on the ground that it cannot be deemed that there was fraud or criminal intent.

In addition to the following circumstances found by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the first instance court, it is justifiable for the first instance court to have acquitted the Defendant on the charges on the grounds as above.

The prosecutor's assertion is without merit.

(1) With the knowledge that the owner of an apartment who intends to move into an auction procedure is going to enter into the auction procedure due to a large number of loans, the aggrieved party paid a money with a significantly short amount of the market price of the deposit for the lease on a deposit basis to enter the apartment and reside in the apartment, and remitted each money recorded in the facts charged to the accused

② At the time when the Defendant received money from the victim in connection with the occupancy of an apartment, the Defendant secured the right to move into the apartment through F to the apartment. However, due to a large number of loans from the owner of the apartment, the Defendant was aware that the auction procedure was in progress for the future apartment, and did not know about the I’s fraud.

(3) The victim is one of the money paid to the defendant because he was well aware of the fact that the right to collateral security, etc. was set excessively due to the large number of K apartment loans, and that it would not be refunded from the owner or that the deposit would not be recovered in the auction procedure.