The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The contract of July 22, 2008 entered into between the Defendant and E (hereinafter “instant contract”) is based on acquiring a patent right from E (patent number I, J, hereinafter “the instant patent right”). However, the Defendant’s transfer and acquisition contract with incidental contents to obtain profit by transferring the instant patent right to large enterprises, etc., or to develop and sell products using the patent right, does not have the right to seek a return of money that the Defendant paid to E, and the Defendant did not have any right to seek a return of money that he paid to E, and therefore, the Defendant filed a complaint as a crime of fraud is a crime of false accusation.

2. Determination

A. For the reasons indicated in its reasoning, the lower court found the Defendant not guilty of the instant contract on the grounds that the Defendant did not merely purchase the instant patent, but rather lent or invested funds to develop and manufacture earphones based on the instant patent right, and provided for exclusive sales rights of earphones completed as the price. On the other hand, it is sufficient to deem that the Defendant either applied for transfer business expenses to government agencies or obtained transfer registration of a patent right to facilitate the sale of the instant patent to large enterprises by using the instant patent right, and it is difficult to view that the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor alone was insufficient to prove that the Defendant was to purchase the instant patent right from E to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt that the instant contract was to purchase the instant patent right, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

B. In addition to the circumstances based on the court below's reasoning, the following circumstances acknowledged by evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below, i.e., the prosecutor of this case from the original E.