2. Determination

A. The lower court acquitted the Defendant on the ground that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor based on the circumstances stated in Chapters 5 through 8 of the judgment of the lower court regarding the facts charged of this case is insufficient to deem the facts charged of this case to have been proven without any reasonable doubt.

B. In light of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the Defendant was aware that the Defendant failed to pay the above borrowed money ex post facto, and the Defendant was aware of the intent to defraud the Defendant beyond the civil liability at the time of borrowing.

Therefore, the above judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error of misconception of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as alleged by the prosecutor.

Therefore, the prosecutor's above assertion is groundless.

① Since May 2013, the Defendant was unable to pay the Plaintiff the fraternity or interest related to the borrowed money of this case, and the Defendant’s credit rating sharply lowered from June 2013 (the trial record 158 pages, 204 pages). ② The victim stated in the investigative agency that “A would not lend absolute money if he knew that the amount of money borrowed from another person would have been so increased” (No. 1 right 98 pages of the evidence record), but the record submitted by the victim alone is objective in terms of the amount of the Defendant’s debt to a third party other than the victim, the time of occurrence, etc.