2. The lower court determined: ① in light of the victim’s investigative agency and the court below’s statement, when considering the victim’s statement at the investigation agency and the court below’s trial, the victim told the Defendant that “the victim would promptly repay the loan money from the Defendant to the maximum amount of the down payment,” and there is a possibility that the victim would have worked after June to July 2014, which began to work in the D cafeteria; ② the Defendant, on January 21, 2014, borrowed 18 million won from the lending company from the victim to the lending company for more than three years until then, without any delay, the victim would normally pay the loan principal to the lending company on behalf of the victim in installments, and during that period, the victim did not have paid the above loan principal directly at his own expense. In light of various circumstances as indicated in its reasoning, including the fact that there was a deception of the victim or a criminal intent to defraud the victim as stated in the facts charged.

It is difficult to conclude that there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in comparison with relevant records, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no violation of law by mistake of facts as alleged by the prosecutor.

Therefore, prosecutor's 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 prosecutor's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.