In addition, F promoted the business of building a hotel on the land located at the time when the Defendant purchased from D, and at the time of the instant case, the Defendant was aware that the Defendant was in the answer of the business that F was promoted by F, so it was sufficiently aware that the Defendant could not recover the investment amount from F. Moreover, from April 2011 to April 201, the Defendant had been under extreme aggravation of the Defendant’s economic situation, and thus, the Defendant did not have any intent or ability to repay the principal and interest of the loan to the victim.

In full view of these facts, the defendant could fully recognize the fact that he/she deceivings the victim as in the facts charged of this case by deceiving the victim as in the negligence of the defendant.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case is erroneous and adversely affected by the judgment.

2. The lower court’s judgment on the grounds of appeal by the prosecutor was based on detailed reasoning of its determination, and the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone did not have the intent or ability to repay the instant money from the injured party at the time of borrowing it.

On the ground that it is difficult to conclude the instant charges, the lower court acquitted the Defendant.

Examining the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below in light of the records, such determination by the court below is justified, and contrary to the prosecutor's assertion, there is an error of law by mistake

subsection (b) of this section.

The prosecutor's above assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.