The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence revealed in the records of the summary of the grounds for appeal (in fact-finding and misapprehension of legal principles), the defendant could be recognized that the defendant acquired money by transfer from the victim under the name of C by borrowing the borrowed money under the name of C by borrowing the borrowed money from the victim, in collusion with E without the authority to borrow money on behalf of the Fund in question and without the personal ability to repay the money.

Nevertheless, the lower court acquitted the Defendant on the ground that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone insufficient to recognize the Defendant’s deception and fraud.

Therefore, there is an error of misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles in the judgment of the court below.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case was from April 2006 to November 201, the Defendant served as the head of the site office of the D building located in the U.S. Emirate (U.S.) in the position of the managing director of CJ headquarters from April 2006 to November 201.

On June 1, 2008, the Defendant conspiredd with E to the effect that “The instant construction work is scheduled to be received by C to pay for the construction work of H building (hereinafter “instant construction work”) implemented in the Uujah government invested in the U.S. Fujach (hereinafter “the instant construction work”), and that “The Defendant would make a subcontract for the construction work after the date of the construction contract by leasing 2.5 million U.S. dollars to C at the expense, if he/she lends 2.5 million U.S. dollars to E, the Defendant would pay in full within two weeks after the date of the construction contract.”

However, the Defendant did not have the authority and intent to receive the above expense on behalf of C, and did not have the intent or ability to repay the above loan.

The Defendant and E were remitted from the victim 2.5 million Dr. (C. 700,163,717).

Accordingly, the defendant was given property by deceiving the victim in collusion with E.

B. The lower court determined that the Defendant, on September 19, 2009, issued a loan certificate to the effect that the Defendant would return the instant money under his/her name.