2. In full view of the circumstances stated in the reasoning of innocence, the lower court found that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone was proven to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt as to the Defendants’ fraud of money by deceiving the victim, such as the facts charged, by conspiracy.

It is difficult to see it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, and the charged facts of this case were acquitted.

In addition to the following circumstances acknowledged by the records of this case in the circumstances that the court below rendered on the grounds of innocence, it was proved that the Defendants conspired in advance and deceptioned the victim by dividing the role as shown in the facts charged and deceiving the victim of KRW 30 million to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt.

Therefore, it is difficult to see that the judgment of not guilty is just and acceptable, and there is a violation of law by mistake of facts as alleged by the prosecutor.

subsection (b) of this section.

Therefore, prosecutor's assertion is without merit.

① The Defendants agreed that the instant loan amount of KRW 30 million is actually used by Defendant A, and Defendant B was in the position of borrowing only on the pretext of the loan, there is no reason for Defendant B to voluntarily pay interest to the victim on its own money after borrowing KRW 30 million. However, Defendant B paid interest to the victim.

Therefore, there was an internal agreement among the Defendants that Defendant A would actually use the borrowed amount of KRW 30 million.

It is difficult to readily conclude.

(2)