The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, such as the victim E and D’s statement, it is recognized that the Defendant borrowed money to E through D under the pretext of “the extension of the original factory and the cost of materials necessary therefor”. Thus, it is also recognized that the Defendant’s deception was recognized, taking into account the Defendant’s occupation and financial standing at the time, and that there was no intent to repay and no ability to repay.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the charged facts of this case on the ground that there is no proof of crime, is erroneous and adversely affected by the judgment.

2. Determination

A. A. Around April 9, 2010, the summary of the facts charged in the instant case, at the Defendant’s office located in Namyang-si, the Namyang-si, the Defendant, via D, the members of the church accompanying the Defendant, “The Defendant is operating the original factory in F at the present two cities, and the Defendant is expected to expand the factory, and the Defendant is expected to have the factory extended, but the interest is to be paid if he/she lends only three months, and he/she is required to pay it within the fixed period.”

그러나 사실 당시 피고인은 F 부지에서 원단 공장을 운영하고 있지 않았고, 다른 곳에 공장을 확장하는 등의 사업 진행을 하고 있지 않았으며, F 부지는 2006. 3.경부터 2010. 5. 11.경 사이에 채권최고액 합계 23억원 상당의 근저당 채무가 설정되어 있는 등으로 더 이상 담보가치가 없었고, F 부지가 3개월 이내에 피고인이 원하는 매매가격으로 제3자에게 매도되리라는 보장이 없었으며 매도되더라도 위 피담보채무 원리금 변제 등으로 인해 남는 여윳돈이 없는 상태였고, 또한 근저당 피담보채무에 대한 이자가 계속 연체되고 있어 조만간 임의경매가 될 처지에 있는 상황이었으며, 그 무렵 위 근저당 피담보채무를 비롯해 금융기관과 사채 등 합계 28억원 상당의 채무가 있었으나 그 이자도 제대로...