The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

The Defendant made a loan to the Defendant as a three-month investment product and sold it to investors, and if the Defendant fails to repay within three months, he was aware that it was a method of collecting money from the newly recruited investors to repay the money. The Defendant borrowed KRW 80 million,00,000,000,000, which was prosecuted for the instant case, to have not accepted the demand for extension of the due date for the first loan 50,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

In light of the fact that the defendant stated that he will be repaid within three months, the defendant had the ability to repay despite the absence of the ability to repay, thereby deceiving D.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case is erroneous and erroneous.

Judgment

Under the title "2. Judgment of not guilty portion" of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the fact that the defendant borrowed 50 million won from the complainant (the first loan) around February 9, 2018, and repaid 80 million won (the second loan) around May 9, 2018, but failed to repay the principal and interest of the second loan. However, the court below recognized the fact that the complainant failed to pay the principal and interest of the second loan. (1) At the time of the first loan, the letter of waiver of the right submitted by the complainant by the defendant as a security document has a public space stating detailed matters concerning the subject matter, and the letter of waiver of the right submitted by the complainant as a second loan is written as a collateral, and in light of the fact that the number of cell phone terminals and subscribers stated as a collateral is written as a de facto more, the complainant made efforts to confirm the actual status of the defendant.