The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the evidence submitted by the court below, although the defendant could fully recognize the fact that the defendant borrowed money from the victim without intent or ability to repay, the court below acquitted the defendant of the facts charged, there is an error of law of misunderstanding the facts.

2. Summary of the facts charged and the judgment of the court below

A. A. Around July 9, 2008, the summary of the facts charged stated that the Defendant provided a real estate lease contract with respect to his/her residence as security to the victim using the Seodaemun-gu Seoul, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul and the victim D (the years of age 74) as a gate, and that “If E lends 60 million won to carry on the sales business of commercial buildings, he/she may invest this money and obtain a high profit in a short period, he/she will pay it without the mold if he/she believed that it would be able to do so, and if he/she lends 2 months only, he/she will return it without the mold.”

However, as above, the real estate contract provided as security has already expired the contract term, and the actual deposit is owned by FF, so the defendant did not have any right to it, and even if the repayment period for lending money to E who is a successor, the payment period was at least one month or later than the due date for payment to the victim, and there was no intention or ability to repay the money even if the defendant borrowed money from the victim due to the lack of a certain income.

Nevertheless, the defendant deceivings the victim as above and acquired 60 million won from the victim.

B. The lower court’s judgment determined as follows: (a) the Defendant was to use the adopted evidence for personal purposes, namely, KRW 10 million out of the borrowed money, but the Defendant did not make a false statement as to the principal place of use at the time of borrowing KRW 60 million from the complainant; and (b) the Defendant was about three months after the borrowing date.