The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

The summary of the grounds for appeal (fact-finding) is as follows: (a) on the first trial date of the court below, the defendant made several recommendations at the same time at a lending brokerage company; and (b) on the first trial date of the court below, the court below acquitted the defendant of the facts charged in this case, even though the defendant had stated the fact that the loan application was filed at the same time with another lending company on the same date on the same date on the grounds that "the defendant did not know that it would be confidential because he could not borrow money if he knew of such facts at the lending company; and (c) the defendant made a confession to the purport that he did not use other loans for the lending of the lending of the lending company "; and (d) the defendant should have stated the fact that the loan application submitted

Judgment

The court below asserted that the defendant was in office as a regular employee in the company at the time of receiving a loan from the direct re-loan, and had the intention and ability to repay the loan exceeding 2 million won per month. However, while the defendant was recommended by the company after being in office and was under difficulties due to difficulties in re-employment during pregnancy, the defendant was subject to provisional seizure at the court around October 2013 and the repayment plan was authorized by the court, and the defendant has been repaid in good faith, so the defendant has no criminal intent to commit fraud. The court below stated that ① The investigation report (related to the time of resignation and the reason of resignation, etc.) to the effect that the defendant was processed as a recommending agency because he was unable to perform his duties in bad faith after receiving the loan, and ② the witness F stated to the effect that he did not know the loan if the defendant was aware of the fact that the defendant received the loan from several lending companies at the same time, but even though he stated that the application for approval for the loan and loan application form prepared by the defendant, the amount of loan application form and loan application form prepared by the 4000.