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

1. Considering the following circumstances in light of the gist of the grounds for appeal, it is reasonable to view that the Defendants, in collusion with B, obtained KRW 52 million from the victim as the hospital development fund even though they did not have the intent or ability to open the hospital at the time, and acquired it by deception.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case is erroneous.

The Defendants appropriated the lease deposit and the artificial expenses necessary for the opening of the hospital from the victim for the money received from the victim, and eventually failed to open the hospital due to the shortage of funds.

The Defendants are only responsible with each other until now and have not returned money to the victims.

B. The Defendants asserted that, with the money received from the victim, the amount of lease deposit, rent, interior cost, etc. was appropriated, and that if the medical equipment used by the existing hospital B was brought about, the hospital opening funds was not required separately.

However, as the deposit for the previous hospital B did not remain and the medical equipment should be sold, there was no specific plan for the opening of hospital to the Defendants.

C. If B is the president of the hospital, there was no profitability due to the National Health Insurance Corporation’s measures to recover medical expenses, and the Defendants planned to receive a new doctor as the president, but there was no intention to confirm the entry.

If the victim knew about the opening plan or financing status of the hospital hospital of the Defendants, and the situation that B should receive the recovery of medical expenses from the National Health Insurance Corporation and receive a new opinion, it would have not paid the hospital development advance to the Defendants.

Defendants did not notify the victim of such circumstances.

2. The lower court, based on the circumstances found based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated, submitted by the prosecutor.