The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal reveals that the victim D, who made a very concrete statement from the investigative agency to the court below, corresponds to the statement of F, E, and H, the statement of F, E, and H corresponds to D, and there is no motive to make a false statement even when accepting the crime of false accusation or perjury, and on the other hand, the defendant did not actively defend himself by asserting that he did not merely borrowed money, but did not file a complaint against D as a crime of false accusation, the court below acquitted the defendant of the facts charged in this case, and thus, the court below acquitted the defendant. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles.

2. Evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and, in particular, D loaned money from E on March 5, 2017 to the Defendant on that day (Evidence No. 350 pages), and E also submitted a fact-finding certificate (Evidence No. 337 pages) consistent with the above statement to an investigative agency. However, D’s statement that D’s cash custody certificate (Evidence No. 32 pages of the trial record) submitted to the lower court was stated that D’s custody of KRW 3 million from March 1, 2017 to March 31, 2017, D borrowed money from E on March 1, 2017 to KRW 300,000,000 from E on that day, and D lent money from “E on March 1, 2017” on that day (Evidence No. 3050, Jul. 30, 2015).

Examining the judgment of the court below in light of the circumstances such as the fact that the statement is not consistent (51 pages of the trial record) and it is difficult to believe, it is sufficiently acceptable for the court below to acquitted the public prosecutor of the facts charged on the grounds as stated in its holding, and there is no error of law by mistake of facts alleged by the public prosecutor.

Therefore, prosecutor's assertion is without merit.

3. The prosecutor’s appeal of conclusion is without merit.