All appeals filed by the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.

1. As long as the statements made by the victim I are consistent from the investigative agency to the court of original trial, and the investment projects in H Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “H”) were actually involved, the fact that the Defendants, in collusion with J, deceptioned the victim and stolen the investment funds is sufficiently recognized.

The court below rejected the credibility of the victim I's statement, and found the defendant not guilty of this part of the facts charged, or judged in violation of logical and empirical rules beyond the limit of the principle of free evaluation of evidence.

2. Determination

A. The prosecutor whose indictment was modified shall maintain the previous facts charged in the trial and shall maintain the following:

As seen in this subsection, a motion was made to revise the indictment with the addition of the ancillary charge, and this Court permitted this.

(B) However, despite the above modification of indictment, the prosecutor's assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles as to the primary facts charged is still subject to the judgment of this court.

B. The court below's determination of facts and misapprehension of legal principles as to the primary facts charged 1) The court below found the Defendants not guilty on the grounds that it is difficult for the I's investigative agency and the court below's statements as shown in the facts charged, and the remaining evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone alone insufficient to recognize the Defendants' criminal intent to commit a crime by deception and fraud. 2) The court below's judgment and the court below's judgment are duly adopted and the evidence duly examined as follows. In light of the following circumstances, it is difficult to recognize that the Defendants conspired with J and fraud, that the J made the Defendant deceiving, that there was causation between the J's investment explanation and the investment act by the J, and that there was a causal relationship between the investment act by the J.