The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Although the summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts) E’s statement complies with specific L, M’s statement and sufficient credibility, the lower court rejected the E’s statement without reasonable grounds and acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged solely on the circumstances in its holding.

2. Summary of the facts charged in this case

A. On July 8, 2016, the Defendant proposed that “The Defendant would buy money from a mobile phone via the phone name in the main machine, and the mobile phone charges and installments are responsible for and pay for it,” at the D coffee shop located in Busan Y-gu, Busan Y-gu around July 8, 2016, and Party E accepted this.

Thus, the defendant, together with E, runs as if he opened and used a normally a mobile phone at the victim G's agency located in Busan Jung-gu, Busan, the same day, and opened one of the phone 6S mobile phones (phone H) in the name of E in the amount of KRW 1,130,800 in the market price.

However, in fact, the Defendant was planning to immediately sell and repurchase a mobile phone opened to raise money due to the absence of any special income at the time, so even if opening a mobile phone, the Defendant did not have the intention or ability to pay the end payment at the time.

As above, the defendant deceivings the victim and received the above mobile phone delivery on his job.

Accordingly, the defendant was given property by deceiving the victim.

2) On July 9, 2016, the Defendant: (a) opened a mobile phone in the name of E, as described in the foregoing paragraph 1; and (b) requested E to open an additional mobile phone.

Therefore, the Defendant, at a place of not more than Daegu around July 9, 2016, run as if he would normally open and use his nameless employees in the agent of the victim E Telecom Co., Ltd., and one mobile phone number 6S mobile phone (phone number I) in the name of E, which is equivalent to KRW 1,130,800 in the market price.