The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, such as the summary of the grounds for appeal, the content of the investment agreement, etc., and the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, it can be acknowledged that the defendant deceivings the

2. The lower court consistently stated to the effect that ① the victim was interested only in the payment of profits at the time of investing in the Defendant, and there was no particular interest in the content of the Defendant’s business and the specific place of use of the investment funds, ② the victim did not undergo a specific verification procedure on-site visit to the land located in Pyeongtaek-gun as stated in the investment agreement, ③ the Defendant did not confirm whether the investment funds were used for the purchase of land located in Pyeongtaek-gun; ③ the Defendant acquired ownership of the relevant land by using a part of the investment funds actually received from the victim in purchasing the land located in J Chang-gun; ④ the Defendant, since the investigative agency and the court of the lower court, explained that “the land invested in the victim was changed and the part of the investment funds was used as the company’s operating expenses.” On the other hand, the victim stated in the lower court to the effect that the victim made an ambiguous statement in the court, ⑤ the Defendant paid the proceeds from the initial investment agreement, and the Defendant set up a collateral security on the land located in Jjin-gun-gun, and that the Defendant was not guilty.

In light of the following circumstances known by the court below in detail, the court below’s decision is justifiable, and the prosecutor’s assertion is without merit.

The victim is the land located in Pyeongtaek-gun that the defendant purchases at the investigative agency.