The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor of the gist of the grounds for appeal, it can be acknowledged that the Defendant, “to leave the proceeds through unregistered resale” and by deceiving the victim, acquired 20 million won from the victim.

Nevertheless, since the court below rendered a not guilty verdict of the facts charged in this case, it erred by misunderstanding the facts charged in this case and thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. The judgment of fraud is established by deceiving another person to make a mistake by inducing the act of disposal, and thereby inducing the delivery of property or gain pecuniary advantage (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Do1155, Jun. 27, 200). Therefore, there should be causation between deception, mistake, and disposal of property (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Do1155, Jun. 27, 200). Meanwhile, whether a certain act constitutes deception that causes a mistake of another person, and whether there exists a causal relationship between such deception and disposal of property should be determined generally and objectively by taking into account the specific circumstances as at the time of the act, such as the transaction

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 87Do1872, Mar. 8, 1988). The lower court, on the grounds indicated in its reasoning, deceiving the victim by the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone.

The defendant was acquitted on the ground that there is no causal relationship between the defendant's deception and the property disposal act.

In light of the above legal principles, the court below's judgment is just and there is no error of law by misunderstanding facts as alleged by the prosecutor, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, in light of the above legal principles.

The prosecutor's assertion is without merit.

3. The appeal by the prosecutor of the conclusion is groundless and thus, pursuant to Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.