The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant used the money received from the victims as a down payment as debt repayment, etc., and the Defendant did not use the money received from the victims for a contract for the distribution of apartment advertising advertisements even if considering the fact that the victims knew of the fact.

In light of this point, the criminal intent of defraudation is recognized for the accused.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant on the ground that it is impossible to recognize the criminal intent of defraudation by the defendant is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the criminal intent of deceptiveation.

2. On the grounds indicated in its reasoning, the lower court acquitted the Defendant of the instant facts charged on the ground that it is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant’s act stated in the facts charged constitutes deception or that the Defendant had had the intent to obtain deception at the time when the act or money recorded in the facts charged was received.

In full view of the circumstances in the court below's reasoning admitted by the evidence of this case, the above judgment of the court below is justified and there is no error of law by mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles as alleged by the prosecutor.

3. According to the conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal of this case is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, since the prosecutor's appeal of this case is without merit.