With respect to the crime around August 10, 2016, considering the fact that the Defendant assumed a large number of obligations at the time of the instant loan, and monthly income was used as living expenses, educational expenses, etc., it is difficult to deem that the Defendant had the ability to repay.

B. In light of the fact that P’s statement delegated by theO operating G to collect from the victim’s statement in relation to the crime around October 27, 2016 conforms to the victim’s statement, it is recognized that the Defendant deceivings the victim that he/she would transfer his/her share equivalent to 2.5 square meters of a limited liability company C (hereinafter “C”).

2. Determination

A. On August 10, 2016, the lower court determined that there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant, on the sole basis of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, was deceiving the victim and defrauding the victim of KRW 4.6 million, by comprehensively taking account of the circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated.

Considering that the Defendant held shares in C’s 3.5 K at the time of borrowing money from the victim, business profits were generated, and the amount of the loan in this case is not less than 4.6 million won, the lower court’s finding the Defendant not guilty of this part of the facts charged on the grounds as stated in its holding is justified.

Therefore, there is no error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding facts as pointed out by the prosecutor in the judgment below.

B. In full view of the circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court with respect to the crime around October 27, 2016, the evidence alone presented by the prosecutor is by deceiving the victims.