The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Around August 25, 2016, the Defendant made a false statement that “Around August 25, 2016, the Defendant would make an amount film “H” to the victim at the D Office of the Victim Operation Co., Ltd., Ltd., the fourth floor of Yongsan-gu Seoul, Yongsan-gu, Seoul, that “I will complete and complete the film production cost of KRW 300 million if I lend it.”

However, there is a need for funds of approximately KRW 3 billion for film production, while the account of the company operated by the defendant at the time was approximately KRW 1.4 million, and the company's net loss in the year 2016 was about KRW 277 million, and the defendant's obligation was about KRW 400 million, and no investment commitment was received in relation to the above film production. Therefore, even if 30 million was borrowed from the victim, there was no intention or ability to repay it.

As above, the Defendant deceptioned the victim, and obtained 300 million won of the same day check from the victim, thereby defrauding the victim.

2. The lower court determined that the evidence presented by the Prosecutor alone was insufficient to recognize the instant facts charged, and that there was no other evidence to prove otherwise, by taking account of the following circumstances.

① At the time of lending KRW 300 million to the Defendant, C was aware that the Defendant’s credit standing and the financial status of E Co., Ltd. operated by the Defendant was not good.

(C) In the investigative agency and this court, the Defendant did not make any investment on the premise that “the Defendant requested to make an investment in film production because it is difficult for him to do so, but did not make any investment. However, it is difficult for the Defendant to find several times to borrow money, and to borrow KRW 300 million. It is difficult to view that C was subject to deception as to the Defendant’s credit and financial status at the time of lending money to the Defendant.