The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. In full view of the facts charged in this case’s fact that the victim made a detailed statement about the circumstances of this case, and H made a statement that there is no evidence to request the bill discount from the defendant, unlike the defendant’s assertion, the court below erred in matters of mistake of facts that acquitted the defendant.

2. On January 15, 2008, the summary of the facts charged of the instant case stated that “The Defendant would make a discount on the face of the back-to-face discount” to the said victim, even if a blank promissory note is delivered from the victim, without any intention or ability to do so.

Ultimately, the Defendant received one blank note (bill No. F) in the name of the Defendant Company E (hereinafter “instant bill”) from the victim on January 20, 2008, from the office of G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “G”) operated by the Defendant Kimpo-si (hereinafter “G”) around January 20, 2008, entered KRW 65,430,000 in the face value of the said blank bill and delivered it to H of the claim recipient.

Accordingly, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, acquired pecuniary benefits equivalent to 65,430,000 won.

3. Determination

A. As to the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant lent and kept the instant bill from the victim on December 2007. The Defendant asserted that, according to the certificate submitted by the Defendant and the Industrial Bank of Korea’s reply to the submission order of financial transaction, the bill number I (which is the bill number I, the issue date of which is 46,958,000 won on August 9, 2007, and the due date, January 21, 2008, and the bill number I (which is 46,958,000 won on January 21, 2008; hereinafter “non-bill”) was not discounted and delivered to H in order to prevent the final default of payment on January 21, 2008.

B. With respect to the judgment of the court below, the court of original judgment shall determine as follows: