사기
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal corresponds to the facts charged that the complainant stated "a hospital" in the account transfer of KRW 1,500,000 to the defendant for account transfer corresponds to the defendant's lending money under the name of hospital expenses. Although the complainant demanded the return continuously after April 30, 2012, the complainant had intentionally urged the defendant to contact, and even if the complainant and the complainant's wife collected money from the defendant, they recognized liability for repayment, such as "the complainant would return money to the defendant" and "the complainant would return money to the defendant." Thus, despite the credibility of the complainant's statement, the complainant's statement was rejected and the judgment of the court below that acquitted the defendant, there was an error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by mismisunderstanding the facts that the complainant acquitted the defendant
2. The court below held that: (a) although the statement of transfer is indicated as “a hospital” in the statement of transfer; (b) in light of the fact that the complainant and the defendant had a personal relationship at the time, there was a possibility that the complainant made a false statement in order to conceal the purpose of donation, etc.; (c) such circumstance alone is insufficient to recognize that the money remitted by the complainant to the defendant was a loan, not a donation; and (d) according to the Mesens divided by the defendant and the complainant, the defendant sent the complainant the message “I would like to return the money immediately if I would like to do so without any other words,” but it appears to the purport that “I would return the money if I would like to go beyond 15 money,” while I would like to look at the defendant’s house and raise a dispute over the issue of money and exchange the letters “I would return the gift if I would like to go.” This is consistent with the defendant’s lawsuit that the complainant had donated the gift from time to time by maintaining a mutual relationship, and it is difficult to view that the defendant deceiving the complainant.