The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal: (a) although the defendant had experienced in raising the funds of the PF funds to the victim, there was only one set of the funds raised by the prosecutor's office; (b) there was a history of having been sentenced to punishment due to a similar crime in the past; and (c) the data that the defendant submitted to the defendant an effort to actually conclude a contract with Asian trust and immediately investment securities are based on the premise that the victim has ownership of the land subject to the project in this case; (c) the reason why the victim entered into the instant service contract is that the defendant would have obtained the funds through the defendant for the payment of the remainder of the land in this case, it cannot be deemed that the defendant actually endeavored to obtain the funds, and there was no ability to raise the funds in itself; and (c) the defendant was the person who immediately used the funds of the 40 million won out of the service contract received by the victim for any purpose other than the service contract. In full view of the above, it is reasonable to deem that the down payment in this case was acquired by the victim after the defendant deceiving the funds to the victim.

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

2. Determination

A. On April 25, 2012, the Defendant stated in the facts charged as follows: “The Defendant would be able to execute the PMF service contract with our company as soon as possible when entering into the PMF service contract with our company for the purpose of raising the PE fund, because the Defendant failed to prepare the land balance of the land subject to the urban-type residential housing construction project in the Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul, for the purpose of raising the funds.”