The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor of the gist of the grounds for appeal, even though it is difficult for the defendant to borrow money from the victim due to financial difficulties at the time of the crime of this case, the defendant deceivings the victim and obtains 200 million won under the name of the loan even though he did not have the intent or ability to repay the loan normally even if he borrowed money from the victim at the time of the crime of this case, and enables the victim not to transfer the right to operate the golf course, thereby allowing the victim to substitute for the defendant to pay 50 million won in operating expenses of the golf course, etc., and the court below acquitted the defendant of the facts charged of this case, which affected

2. Determination

A. The lower court’s judgment: (a) stated at an investigative agency that “the complainant borrowed money from the Defendant at the time of lending money; (b) the complainant stated in the lower court to the effect that “the complainant borrowed money from the Defendant at the time of lending money; (c) the complainant was aware of the economic situation of the Defendant that it was difficult for the complainant; and (d) the complainant was deemed that the Defendant did not make any false statement on his/her own property and income; (d) the complainant paid a large amount of borrowed money to the Defendant in cash; and (d) some of the complainant were given by using a borrowed account; (e) the complainant was likely to have known that there was a problem in the credit of the Defendant from January 2014 to April 2015; and (v) the complainant was able to pay interest at the rate of operation of the investigative agency and the promise to transfer the golf course to the complainant; and