The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant, by deceiving the victim of the purpose of use, borrowed KRW 200 million from the victim, and had no ability or intent to repay due to the fact that he had serious economic difficulties at the

Fraud is established against the defendant.

2. Around February 29, 2012, the Defendant stated that “If the Defendant lends KRW 200 million to the victim, he/she shall import overseas famous items and keep them in a new store, he/she shall sell them together with overseas scenic items he/she owns, and shall repay them within six months with such profits.”

However, even if the Defendant borrowed the above money from the victim, it was merely intended to use it as personal debt repayment, lease deposit, company operating expenses, etc., and did not have the intent or ability to repay the above borrowed money within six months from the import of overseas reputations.

On February 29, 2012, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, received KRW 18 million in cash and KRW 42 million in total from the victim on February 29, 2012, and received KRW 50 million in check around March 5, 2012.

3. The court below and the court below found the defendant not guilty on the ground that it is difficult to prove that the defendant, as stated in the facts charged, had a reasonable doubt as to the defendant's deception of the use of the borrowed money, or deception of the intent or ability to repay, as stated in the facts charged, to the extent that there is no room for deliberation.

Examining the evidence of this case in light of the records, it is just for the court below to determine innocence based on the evidence judgment as stated in its reasoning, and the judgment of the court below does not contain any illegality affecting the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the

The prosecutor's assertion of mistake is justified.