The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. In full view of the summary of the grounds for appeal, the victim and D’s respective legal statements, etc., the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine that found the Defendant not guilty of the instant facts charged, and thereby adversely affected the conclusion of the judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the remainder of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is to be repaid to the Defendant on May 2015 by lending KRW 17 million to the victim, as the Defendant is urgently required to start his/her business through the victim C’s penal section D.

Although "," did not have any intention or ability to repay money, even if he/she borrowed money from a person who suffered damage.

Nevertheless, the defendant deceiving the victim as above and transferred KRW 6 million to the Agricultural Cooperative Account under the name of the defendant, including KRW 4 million around May 26, 2015, KRW 4 million around the 27th of the same month, KRW 4690,000 around the 28th of the same month, KRW 2 million around the 31st of the same month.

On June 30, 2015, the Defendant continued to lend KRW 13 million to the victim, as it falls short of the amount borrowed from the victim at the last time through the above D around June 30, 2015, and the amount borrowed up to one month and the sum paid up to the last time.

Even if the victim borrowed money, he/she did not have any intent or ability to repay the money.

Nevertheless, on July 10, 2015, the Defendant was issued 13 million won to the above account on July 10, 2015 by deceiving the victim and deceiving the victim.

B. The lower court rendered a judgment 1) on the ground that the facts charged in the instant case constitute a case where there is no proof of criminal facts as follows, and sentenced the Defendant not guilty pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

2) The defendant asserts to the effect that he borrowed the above money through D, but he did not deceiving the victim C.

As stated in the facts charged, the defendant is DNA.