The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the summary of the grounds of appeal Nos. E and H’s statement, the court below acquitted the Defendant on the grounds that it sufficiently recognized the fact that the Defendant could have been engaged in the construction work, without notifying such fact, even though the construction permit itself was in an infinite state, as if the Defendant could be engaged in the construction work, and according to the project owner I’s statement, it is recognized that the construction work could not be performed within a short time because the contractor did not have determined and the funds were not fully prepared, and that the Defendant also recognized the fact that the construction was not received from the start-up phase up until now, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts against the rules of evidence.

2. Examining the reasoning of the judgment below on the grounds of appeal in light of the records of this case, in light of the facts acknowledged by the court below, the defendant cannot be deemed as deceiving a victim in relation to the building permit, and the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone alone is sufficient to recognize that the defendant had no intent or ability to give a subcontract to the victim even if the defendant had to obtain a building permit only at the time of receiving the money from the victim, and even if the defendant did not work, the fact-finding and decision of the court below are just and acceptable, and there is no error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts due to the violation of the rules of evidence as

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, and it is so decided as per Disposition.