The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The prosecutor of the grounds of appeal asserts to the effect that “The 60 million won that D lent to the defendant was separate from the Dong business agreement, and the defendant was in excess of his/her obligation at the time, it can sufficiently be recognized that he/she borrowed KRW 60 million from D without the defendant's ability to repay or intent to do so.” Nevertheless, the court below's judgment that acquitted the defendant of this part of the facts charged is erroneous and adversely affected the conclusion of the judgment.”

2. Determination

A. A. Around May 18, 2009, the Defendant stated that “Around May 18, 2009, the Defendant ceased to perform his/her duties for manufacturing machinery from the (D) office operated by D in Kimhae-si to a Japanese company due to personal circumstances, and that “Around December 30, 2010, the Defendant would complete the payment by December 30, 2010 after having borrowed KRW 30 million from the Japanese company with a contract for manufacturing machinery from the Japanese company.” However, at the time, the Defendant borrowed KRW 13.7 million from the Korean CF bank, and 3.7 million from the KFF’s office to the KF office, even if he/she borrowed money from D due to an difficult economic circumstance, such as a cumulative loan of KRW 30 million from the KFF bank, the Defendant did not have any intent or ability to repay the money from D’s office until 200,000 won.” Nevertheless, the Defendant could not, as above, receive KRW 3,000,000 from D.

However, at the time, the defendant is able to pay money to D when he receives money from D and uses it for the repayment of his personal debt, not for directors.