The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

However, for three years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual error) led the victim to borrow money from the victim and immediately lend the money to D, as if he/she borrowed money for the purpose of expanding his/her business by hiding such a fact.

The Defendant did not have the intent to repay and the ability to repay money as stated in the facts charged at the time of borrowing money from the victim. As long as such points are recognized, the circumstance that the Defendant believed D’s ability to repay does not interfere with the establishment of the crime of fraud of this case.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant on the ground that the facts charged are proven and the fraud was not proven, and there is an error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The lower court rendered a judgment on the following grounds: (a) it is difficult to readily conclude that the Defendant had no intent or ability to repay the instant loan because the evidence presented by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant’s passive property at the time of the instant loan exceeds active property; and (b) the Defendant also seems to believe that the Defendant believed D’s intent and ability to repay the loan amount and borrowed KRW 400 million from the victim and lent it to D; and (c) it is difficult to view that the fact that the Defendant deceiving the victim without any intent and ability to repay the loan amount of KRW 400 million was proven without any reasonable doubt and acquitted the Defendant

B. The court below held that the cash lending relationship of this case between the victim and D appears to be K not a natural person but a corporation operated by D, and that it is not "D". The court below held that the cash lending relationship of this case is "K," not "D.

The defendant's assertion that the defendant was only introduced, and the monetary lending relationship of this case was between the victim and the defendant.