The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The lower court found the Defendant not guilty of fraud on January 1, 2012 among the facts charged against the Defendant, on or around September 2013, on each of the following facts: (a) guilty of fraud; (b) forgery of each private document and the use of each falsified document; and (c) fraud on November 19, 2015.

Since a prosecutor filed an appeal only against the acquittal portion of the judgment below and the prosecutor and the defendant did not appeal against the conviction portion, the conviction portion in the judgment of the court below became final and conclusive separately from the attitude of the appeal period.

Therefore, the scope of this court's trial is limited to the acquittal portion of the judgment below.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The victim has the ability to pay for the deposit money that the defendant attends the place of work and is also capable of paying;

I think, I lent 1 million won to the defendant.

The victim was unaware of the economic situation of the defendant at the time of lending money to the defendant.

B. Therefore, since the victim caused mistake by the Defendant’s deception and lent money to the Defendant, the Defendant’s act constitutes fraud.

3. Determination

A. The lower court acquitted the Defendant on November 19, 2015, on the ground that it is difficult to recognize the causal relationship between the Defendant’s deception and the victim’s mistake, in light of the following: (a) it is difficult to deem that the Defendant actively committed deception with respect to the ability to repay performance or intent to repay performance; and (b) it is difficult to recognize the causal relationship between the Defendant’s deception and the victim’s mistake, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone alone was insufficient to recognize the causal relationship

B. Even though the appellate court did not have a new objective reason to affect the formation of a documentary evidence in its trial process, when it intends to re-examine the first deliberation decision and make an ex post facto decision, the first deliberation decision was clearly erroneous or the fact finding was made.