The Defendant was aware that D had no ability to repay the instant loan.

Nevertheless, as the Defendant permitted D to obtain the instant loan using the name of the Defendant, the Defendant had dolusent intent to commit fraud.

must be viewed.

Therefore, the defendant's fraud is recognized.

2. Based on the circumstances stated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that: (a) the Defendant allowed D to take the instant loan using the Defendant’s name; or (b) obtained the instant loan by deceiving a non-us Capital Co., Ltd.

It is difficult to recognize the defendant as not guilty.

A thorough examination of the reasoning of the lower judgment’s acquittal and the evidence of this case reveals that, in light of the developments leading up to the loan of this case and the inconsistency between D’s statements, the statements of D’s original court and investigative agency, which are the only evidence corresponding to the facts charged of this case, are difficult to believe and (a) there is credibility in each of D’s statements that the lower court determined that D’s

There is no special circumstance to determine a person (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do5313, Jun. 14, 2012). D used the Defendant’s name without the Defendant’s permission, thereby making the instant loan.

As there is a lot of room to view, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone by deceiving Non-us Capital Co., Ltd. by allowing the Defendant to obtain the instant loan by using the Defendant’s name intentionally with the negligence of fraud, thereby deceiving him/her.

The recognition is insufficient, and there is no other evidence to prove it.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is just, and the 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 appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.