2. As to the facts charged of this case, the court below explained the reasons for not guilty as to the facts charged of this case, and sentenced the defendants not guilty on the ground that it is difficult to view that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone had the criminal intent to commit fraud such as the facts charged,

In comparison with the evidence records, the judgment of the court below is closely examined, and the defendants borrowed money through J. In particular, the J seems to have been clearly aware of the fact that the defendants would have been expected to receive a loan from the bank. The J and the victim directly verified that the loan from the national bank will be made from the person in charge of the lending branch of the national bank that the defendants intended to borrow money at the time; the loan from the national bank was not made by the victim immediately before the loan was made by the defendants; and the defendants were to receive a small amount of money from the agricultural bank with low interest and eventually, the defendant could not immediately repay the money from the F due to the low financial costs. In light of the circumstances, it is difficult to conclude that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone, by the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the defendants did not have any intent or ability to make a repayment to the defendants.

Therefore, we affirm the judgment of the court below that acquitted the charged facts of this case and there is no error of misconception of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal against the Defendants is without merit, and all of the appeals are dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so ordered as per Disposition.