The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor’s summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of the facts), the fact that the Defendant deceivings the victim as stated in the facts charged in the instant case and acquired 270 million won in total as the purchase price of ten Chinese Dog Self-Governing 10 (hereinafter “Dog Self-Governing Do”), can be acknowledged.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that acquitted the defendant is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances recognized based on the evidence duly adopted and examined, the lower court: (a) the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone, which alone led to the Defendant’s deception or deception;

The court rendered a verdict of innocence on the grounds that there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge it, and there is no other evidence.

1) At the time of deception or at the time of remitting the instant self-payment, the Defendant concluded that the victim consented to the construction of a museum in the D head of the Gun and D Council or that the present site was secured, or that the victim purchased the instant self-determination by deceiving the victim.

shall not be deemed to exist.

2) Inasmuch as it cannot be readily concluded that the instant intention does not have the value of KRW 30,000 per piece of 1 foot or per 30,000 won, the Defendant deceivings the value of the instant intention.

shall not be deemed to exist.

3) At the time of the instant case, the victim is likely to re-sale to D upon the establishment of the museum, and otherwise, if not, the Defendant agreed to return the purchase price, and thus, the Defendant appears to have purchased the instant Dog itself.

In light of the progress of the establishment of the museum at the time of the establishment of the museum and the agreement on the refund of the purchase price of this case, at the time the defendant agreed to re-purchase the identity of this case in D, thereby deceiving the victim or deceiving the defendant intentionally.

It shall not be readily concluded.

B. The above determination by the lower court is justifiable even if it was examined in the first instance trial.