All prosecutor's appeal against the Defendants is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the fact-finding) is that the victim I was recommended by the Defendants to invest in the Chinese and Mongolia-related projects, and he believed the Defendants to return the investment money or promise to pay the proceeds through deception and obtained them by deception. However, the first instance court erred by misapprehending the fact that it was not guilty of each fraud against the Defendants and thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. The Defendants consistently disputed the fact that Defendant A received money from Defendant A as investment money from the complainant, or that there was no accusation against the complainant, from the investigative agency to the court of the first instance. Examining the reasons for innocence in the judgment of the court of first instance and the evidence submitted in comparison with the aforementioned Defendants’ allegations, the Defendants’ statements made by the complainant as the primary evidence indicating that the Defendants deceptiond the complainant as stated in the facts charged are consistent with the aforementioned Defendants. However, in light of the various specific circumstances as stated in the first instance court’s detailed decision, the sole statement by the complainant was made by the Defendants to make investments by making a false statement to the complainant.

It is not sufficient to recognize that the Defendants received investment from the complainants as a deception, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise, it is reasonable to judge the Defendants not guilty of the facts charged in this case where the Defendants conspired to acquire money from the complainants under the name of investment funds. There is no additional evidence to prove the Defendants’ deception in the trial, nor there is no new evidence to prove the Defendants’ deception. Therefore, the prosecutor’

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed under Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit.