The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of the facts) is that the Defendant had already closed down the company at the time when receiving investment funds in the development project of the Eastern Zone from the complainant D, and even if several years have passed since the complainant was excluded, the Defendant did not receive investment and did not purchase the business site at all. In full view of the economic ability to implement the development project at the time when the complainant paid the personal debt, etc. and the fact that the complainant did not have the ability to repay the money received from the complainant as well as the economic ability to perform the development project at the time when the complainant paid the investment funds, the lower court determined otherwise by misapprehending the facts.

2. Determination

A. The lower court found the Defendant not guilty of the facts charged of this case on the ground that it is difficult to readily conclude that the Defendant, by deceiving the complainant with respect to the business prospects or the progress of the business, received the investment money.

B. Examining the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s judgment and the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the first instance court and the trial court, the evidence alone presented by the prosecutor that the Defendant deceivings the complainant to acquire the investment money.

It is difficult to see, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that acquitted the facts charged of this case is justified.

① The complainant paid investment funds to the Defendant at the early stage of the development project of the East Line, which the Defendant promoted, and when the project is completed, the complainant would receive investment profits by paying land of 2,00 square meters.

② At the time of the original trial, the complainant was aware that the market price of the land in Suduk Island at the time of the original trial was KRW 300,000,000,000,000,000 per deliberation.

The Defendant stated that it was an investment plan to receive KRW 200 billion from investors with a purchase fund of KRW 300,000,000 for the instant land for the instant project (if it is simply an average of the foregoing, the land is equal.