The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual error) occurred during the Defendant's restaurant business period, and the Defendant collected the lease deposit of KRW 30 million and the premium of KRW 20 million after closure of the business, but did not harm the victim's profit distribution and settlement, and the Defendant did not report the settlement of accounts. Therefore, it is recognized that the Defendant was guilty of fraud. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below that acquitted the Defendant is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts.

2. The lower court found the Defendant not guilty on the ground that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone alone proves that the Defendant received an investment from a victim without an intent to distribute profits or residual assets to the extent that it is reasonable doubt that the Defendant would not be justified, considering the following: (a) the statement in the statement in the statement in the statement in the statement in which the amount of loss was net income during the business period (from December 2, 2014 to November 2016) and the witness F’s testimony were difficult to believe in light of the actual expenditure of personnel expenses and the possibility of omitting the portion in cash sales; (b) considering the actual expenditure of personnel expenses, the Defendant may be deemed to have suffered losses during the business period; and (c) the remaining assets to be distributed at the time of closure are unlikely to remain.

Examining the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below in comparison with the records, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no illegality of misconception of facts as alleged by the public prosecutor.

(P) Even if net income has been generated during the business period, the fact that the defendant did not properly settle the accounts accordingly does not lead to the failure of the defendant to do so, apart from the defendant's default on his/her obligation to the victim, it cannot be inferred the defendant's criminal intent at the time of receiving the investment money). 3. The prosecutor's appeal of the conclusion is dismissed as it has