The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the court below found the defendant not guilty of the facts charged of this case, which is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles or misapprehension of legal principles, although the defendant knew of the problem of the device by the strike in this case from the beginning, and furthermore, although he knew of the fact that it is improper to use the device as a LED product, he could deceiving the victim and receive development expenses and product

2. The summary of the facts charged is the representative of D who leads to the development of an electronic circuit.

On July 31, 2012, the Defendant entered into a contract for the development, etc. of soft devices used in LED lighting products with G, F’s employees, the victim F’s employees, at the D office located in Bupyeong-gu, Sincheon-gu, Seocheon-gu, 201, and 5 million won from the injured party at its development cost, and the same year.

9. The same expense was paid KRW 5 million at the same time, KRW 60 million at the product cost on February 18, 2013, and KRW 70 million at the product cost.

However, even though the defendant did not have the ability to develop the above device in compliance with the Japanese electrical standards, he would develop and manufacture products in compliance with the Japanese electrical standards and manufacture them in Japan.

‘Falsely speaking, it entered into a contract with G with the above contents and received the said money and acquired it by fraud.

3. The lower court’s determination: (a) the Defendant entered into a contract with the victim company for the development of soft lighting devices, and received a total of KRW 70,000,000 for the development cost or the production cost of the products; (b) the Defendant developed the so-called so-called “ED lighting product” and manufactured the said products; (c) the victim company displayed the products at the ASEAN Big Site Exhibitions around January 2013, when there are any particular defects as a result of the test of the above lighting product; and (d) the victim company after the exhibition entered into a contract with Japan for the export of the above lighting product.