The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant was not able to transfer D harmony points (hereinafter “the instant store”) because he did not pay franchise expenses to the head office, and the lower court acquitted the Defendant of the charge of fraud, even though he did not notify the fact that he had to enter into a contract with the head office and pay membership fees to the said store in order to acquire the said store, the lower court acquitted the Defendant of the charge of fraud as long as he received transfer proceeds from E without notifying that he had to pay membership fees.

2. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the following facts can be acknowledged.

(1) The Defendant transferred the above store to E while operating the instant store under the condition that part of the franchise cost was unpaid due to the parents with the representative H of the headquarters.

② On November 14, 2012, following the acquisition of a store, E received notification from the head office to the effect that the transfer of a franchise store that does not consult with the head office is null and void, and the Defendant re-transfer the name of the instant store to his/her own future, and paid in full the unpaid franchise fee to the head office on November 16, 2012.

③ From November 2012 to October 2013, the Defendant operated the instant store with E, and around April 2015, when one year and six months have elapsed since the date the joint operation with the Defendant was completed, the Defendant filed a complaint with the Defendant as fraud; on the other hand, the Defendant filed a civil suit claiming cancellation and restitution on the ground of nonperformance of the contract for the transfer of the store, and claiming compensation for damages arising from deception, even though the transfer of the store was impossible; on the ground that there was no evidence to acknowledge nonperformance of performance and deception.

Ultimately, even after being notified by the head office that the change of name is impossible, E did not raise any objection to the Defendant while jointly operating the instant store for about 11 months, and common.