The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. On January 2012, the summary of the facts charged by the Defendant stated that “The Defendant, through her husband F, lent KRW 70,000,000,000 to the victim G, a representative of the said company, “I want to work as an intermediary wholesaler at the E office. If I lend money, I will pay KRW 1,00,000 per month for every seven years.”

However, at the time of fact, the defendant did not have any intention or ability to repay the above money even if he borrowed the above money because the marina operated with the husband has not been properly operated.

Around the 19th day of the same month, the Defendant acquired money from the victim through the Agricultural Cooperative Account (Account Number H) and acquired money from the victim (hereinafter “instant KRW 70 million”).

2. The lower court’s judgment: (a) the determination of the lower court at the time of the act was based on the determination as to whether the crime of fraud was established; and (b) the fact that the contract was not realized due to the change in economic circumstances after the act, etc. after which the act was conducted, and thus, it cannot be punished by fraud; (c) the fact that the instant KRW 70 million was the money lent without interest for a long time so that the intermediary wholesaler can facilitate business activities after changing the company; (b) the Defendant repaid approximately KRW 11 million to the victim until June 2013; and (c) the Defendant’s failure to repay KRW 70 million after the act was caused by changes in circumstances such as increase in the amount of credit and aggravation in the amount of credit; and (d) in light of the fact that the Defendant worked as an intermediary wholesaler belonging to the wholesale corporation operated by the victim for a considerable period of time, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone alone does not provide evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant was not guilty on the ground that “the Defendant was found guilty.”

3...