In light of the fact that it is difficult to deem that the victim or the victim was aware that he guaranteed D's debt, and according to the victim and D's statement, the defendant's loan to D was 3 million won as of July 30, 201, 3 million won as of October 23, 2010, 3 million won as of December 28, 201, 3 million won as of February 28, 201, and 3 million won as of February 17, 2011, it is recognized that the defendant lent 6 million won to the victim on June 201, and there is no evidence that the defendant lent 9 million won to the victim, and thus, the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case.

2. Determination

A. The lower court rendered a not guilty verdict on this part of the facts charged on the ground that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone, based on the following facts and circumstances, is insufficient to acknowledge that the Defendant had a criminal intent to deception at the time of the instant case, and that there is no other evidence to

1) At the time of the instant crime, the victim C was operating Gnonodes. D was an employee at H (Y) in which her mother was operated.

On the other hand, D borrowed money from the victim from 2009, and D worked in the above Gnonopo bank for the repayment of the money.

B) On July 2, 2010, D borrowed KRW 3 million from the Defendant on the basis of the victim’s introduction. D and the victim shall be the Defendant’s letter of loan (hereinafter “certificate of loan on July 2, 2010”) with the following terms: “The borrower, D, the guarantor, the victim, and the repayment period on October 20, 2010” (hereinafter “certificate of loan”).

D) A loan certificate dated July 30, 2010 (3 million won, D, repayment period of October 10, 2010), D, as of October 23, 2010, as of October 23, 2010, with a loan certificate borrowed amounting to three million won, as of October 23, 2010;