The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. 항소이유의 요지 피해자는 수사기관에서 원심 법정에 이르기까지 일관되게 이 사건 공소사실에 부합하는 진술을 하는 반면, 2016. 2.경 시행사인 ㈜Q의 U의 부탁으로 피해자에게 100억 원의 투자금을 유치해주고 피해자로부터 이자 명목으로 이 사건 5,000만 원을 받은 것이라는 피고인의 주장은 신빙성이 없는 점 등에 비추어 보면, 피고인이 피해자를 기망하여 5,000만 원을 편취한 사실이 충분이 인정됨에도, 원심이 이 사건 공소사실을 무죄로 판단한 것에는 사실오인의 위법이 있다.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the records of this case, the lower court determined that the Defendant’s KRW 50 million, which the Defendant received from the victim, was specified as the cost of attracting investment amounting to KRW 8 billion.

The court determined that it is difficult to conclude that the defendant did not have the intent and ability to attract investment funds or repay borrowed funds because he/she was unaware of the person who owns funds to invest.

1) At the time of the police investigation, the victim stated that 7 billion won, such as expenses incurred in creating forest replacement resources necessary for the land readjustment project of G and the farmland diversion contribution, was necessary, and around March 2016, the investor and the investor could invest KRW 8 billion by the introduction of the defendant in Daegu, and that the defendant transferred KRW 50 billion to the above investment attraction at the expense of the above investment attraction, and the defendant was entitled to receive KRW 8 billion from the date of investment. (2) However, around February 4, 2016, the defendant, upon request from the victim, had the bond company deposit KRW 10 billion in the bank account prepared by the bond company after being requested by the victim, and the victim did not borrow interest KRW 150 million without being borrowed by the victim, and deposited the above KRW 10 billion in the bank account of our bank. D.