사기
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor of the gist of the grounds for appeal, although the defendant could recognize the fact that he received money from the victim under the pretext of purchasing her husband's vehicle and repaying E's loan without the intent of repayment or ability by deceiving the victim concerning the property status at the time of the loan in this case and the obligation relationship with E, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the
2. On the grounds indicated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that it is difficult to recognize that the Defendant, without intent or ability to repay at the time of each of the instant loans, obtained money by deceiving the victim without any intent or capacity, and that there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, and thus
The facts found by the court below are as follows, which are acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, i.e., the defendant consistently asserted that at the time when the defendant borrowed money from the victim on May 28, 2015, the defendant did not have borrowed money from the investigative agency to the victim on the her husband's purchase cost, and thus the victim stated that at the time of the first police investigation, the defendant would have borrowed money to the victim as necessary to commit the her husband's fraud (the 21th page of the evidence record), but the defendant stated that at the time of interrogation, the defendant would have lent money to the her husband's business as necessary (the 45th page of the evidence record). The court below stated that the defendant again lent money to the her husband's business (the her husband), and that the defendant again lent money to the her husband's business. In light of the victim's statement made by the investigative agency and the court below, the victim considered the place where the defendant borrowed money from the victim.