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

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding the facts) was that, at the time of the instant crime, Defendant B’s business for the new construction and sale of the “T hotel” (hereinafter “R”) of the R Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “R”) that Defendant B works as the representative director at the time of the instant crime, the Defendants had sufficiently predicted that, in relation to the instant business, there was a need for large-scale funds other than the invested money received from the victimized party due to the lack of funds to the extent that it would not raise 50 million won or KRW 100 million or KRW 100 million or KRW 50 million or KRW 100,000,000 to be used as the starting cost of the said new hotel construction, and that the said capital received from the victimized party was not directly invested in the said business, but was used as an investment advance to receive 5 billion won from U Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “U”), a third party (hereinafter “third party”).

Moreover, the Defendants are expected to obtain a loan equivalent to KRW 30 billion from the UK bank from the U.K.-related persons, and if the loan was made, the Defendants merely stated that they will invest KRW 5 billion in the Defendants, but did not go through the process of confirming the possibility of the investment.

Nevertheless, the Defendants received investments from victims without notifying the victim of the financial status of R or the use of the investment fund. Such circumstances are important to determine whether to proceed with the instant project. Therefore, it is obvious in light of the empirical rule that the victimized person would not have made investments if he/she was notified of the aforementioned circumstances.

Therefore, even though the defendants did not perform the duty of disclosure against the victim and made investment, the crime of fraud is established due to the violation of the duty of disclosure, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendants of the facts charged of this case by mistake

2. Determination

A. The prosecutor of the instant facts charged as follows.