A. Comprehensively taking account of the victims’ statements, K and investors’ statements, it can be acknowledged that the Defendant was unable to operate the Defendant’s Schedule at the time of borrowing money from the victims.

B. Therefore, the judgment of the court below that acquitted the defendant even though the defendant was aware of the criminal intent by deceit, is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts and affected the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is that the Defendant was operating Gacare in Australia City on November 26, 2012, 1) at the attorney-at-law office located in Australia City on November 26, 2012, the Defendant was in a state of fit Gacare operated by the Defendant at that time, and even if he did not have any property or income, he did not have any intention or ability to repay it to the victim within 2 weeks, he did not necessarily have any intention or ability to repay it, and he received 30,000 US dollars (32,000,000 US dollars) from the damaged person on the same page and received 30,000 US dollars from the damaged person under the pretext of borrowing 30,000 US dollars (30,000 US dollars) from the damaged person under the pretext of borrowing 30,000 US dollars, and there is no intention or ability to repay the money from the victim to the Defendant on February 9, 2013.