The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Even though the summary of the grounds for appeal can be recognized that the defendant deceivings the victim to acquire money, the court below acquitted the defendant of the facts charged. The court below erred in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. On April 10, 201, at least 11:00 on April 10, 201, the summary of the facts charged, the Defendant: (a) stated that, in the multi-faceted multi-faceted area near the subway station, Jongno-gu Seoul Jongno-gu Co., Ltd., “The Defendant: (b) paid the victim C money with a large amount of money to be used by financial institutions affiliated with Jae-do; (c) is reverted to the National Treasury due to the Tax and Foreign Exchange Transaction Act; and (d) is locked. If the Defendant collected the money by way of money, 3.5 million won need to be spent if he/she paid the money in return for the repayment of money borrowed within five (5) days.”

However, the words of the defendant are all false, and the defendant did not have any intention or ability to repay the money borrowed from the victim.

The Defendant, as such, by deceiving the victim, received 3.5 million won from the victim around 11:00 on April 12, 201 at the above place.

3. The lower court’s judgment: (a) submitted a written complaint to an investigative agency and received an investigation as a witness; and (b) the Defendant borrowed money from the person who is DC to obtain the Defendant; and (c) on April 10, 201, the Defendant borrowed money from the side on the paper at the same time as that stated in the facts charged. On April 12, 201, the Defendant issued a cashier’s check to the Defendant and returned KRW 1,500,000 to the Defendant in cash at the same time. The Defendant borrowed KRW 3,50,000 from the expense incurred in raising money. However, the Defendant borrowed KRW 3,50,000 to the Defendant for the expenses incurred in paying the money, but the Defendant was asked to pay the money continuously and was not paid the money. However, the Defendant was not present at the lower court’s court.