The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the evidence, such as the statement of the victim of the grounds for appeal, the defendant is unable to work, and despite the lack of intent and ability to pay the notified costs, the court below found the defendant not guilty of the facts charged of this case by deceiving the victim as if he would immediately pay the notified costs, and by deceiving him property profits as stated in the facts charged. However, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged showed the same attitude that the Defendant would pay the victim E the expenses of the Institute of Public Notification in Songpa-gu Seoul around July 2013 to the victim E in advance at the early 2.50,000 won each month. However, the Defendant did not have any intent or ability to pay the Institute of Public Notification to the victim.

Accordingly, even though the Defendant deceiving the victim as above and let the victim use the above notification source from July 2013 to October 10, 2013, the Defendant did not pay the victim a total of KRW 950,000 won of the notification source for the above period, thereby acquiring property benefits equivalent to the above amount.

B. The lower court determined as follows: (a) prior to July 2013, the Defendant had already resided in the process of paying KRW 50,000,000,000, which was recognized by the evidence; (b) paid late July 2013; (c) the Defendant did not actually reside in the instant public announcement center from the start date of delinquency in the admission fees; (d) the instant public announcement center is obliged to take measures to be taken in advance if the Defendant did not pay the actual admission fees; and (e) the Defendant did not collect the items remaining in his/her own room because the Defendant failed to pay the actual admission fees; and (e) the Defendant appears to have failed to collect the items remaining in his/her room.